Ambiguity and Faith

Let's assume God is reasonable, what do I mean by this? I mean he abides by basic logical rules and if he wants us to believe in him, has left enough evidence or enough a priori facts to convince a reasonable person he exists. I think this is reasonable, and feels almost like the minimum he could do. Of course, this already is a little flawed: if someone is of low intelligence, how can they be expected to work this out (therefore God discriminates based on intelligence)? Especially if they are surrounded by "evil-doers" (whatever that means). But I digress, lets continue this simple point to some kind of conclusion.

One example of a common argument for a God is the cosmological argument. This says

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

I don't want to delve particularly deeply on the points, for much better philosophers than I have already been there. I merely want to highlight that there exists areas of ambiguity.

• Our facts about causation is based on a posteriori knowledge, making 2 and 3 somewhat ambiguous. Some physicists have suggested that time does funny things near the start of the universe, allowing for a chain of infinite causation.
• 4 Concludes that an infinite, non-contingent "being" exists. However, it gives no indication as to what the being is like. It may not even be sentient. If you did want to conclude it was intelligent and conscious, then it may be a God who doesn't interfere, or does interfere but doesn't give two shits about our eternal welfare. It's certainly far from certain that its the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (or any other).

For many others, check out the Wikipedia or if you don't like Wikipedia, I'm sure there are many other good resources out there. The point is, even if you think I am incorrect about these counter-positions, you must concede there is at least some ambiguity (i.e. it is entirely reasonable, from the evidence, to conclude there is no God). Then, because of the ambiguity of this argument (and of many others I don't have time to list), it is unreasonable (see definition of reasonable at top) of god to expect us to make that choice. The arbitrariness and ambiguity behind the decision makes it uncharacteristic of a reasonable God.

A common defence is that cynical people who require conclusive evidence and that take the position that logically we should start off as an agnostic, are denying God. Somehow, this cynicism or reluctance to have faith without evidence is a bad quality. Conversely, faith is rewarded and considered a good quality. Despite, logically being an inferior way of making decisions. This contradicts my premise, suggesting that such a God is unreasonable. Maybe God exists and is unreasonable, although if that is the case, then God help us all.