It sounds to me like you are saying "my reasons are so fancy that I can't explain them on CF".
In one way that accords with a few things that Pascal and Kierkegaraard have said, your surmising could have the ring of truth to it; but then again, I can put the shoe on the other foot and ask you to make a comprehensive---nay, an exhaustive list---of every jot and tittle, detail, field, discovery, insight, criteria, aptitude, or epistemic assurance that one must have to be considered "honest" when deliberating and musing over the possibility that Christianity may be true. Truthfully, I have yet to see such a list and one, at that, which all can unanimously agree upon.
So, maybe just this once, let's dispense with the airs of condescension that either side in this discussion could attempt to play upon the other in a bid to 'prove' the validity of one or the other side. I don't do this to my opponents; and I sure don't expect them to do it to me. If anything, what may be expected from me is not a condescending attitude that "all you atheists are in denial of the truth," but rather a sharp criticism from me that skeptics are
not really as sure of everything they think they're sure of, just as much as may be said that some Christians in various circles are also not as sure of everything in their respective theologies as would seem to be by the claims they make.
To quote the OP from
@BigV, "What is more honest, an assurance based on unverifiable, unfalsifiable or otherwise fallacious suppositions, or a search for truth and remaining in doubt until a verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound answer is obtained?". Without tackling your honesty yet, do you have any reasons that are "verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound"?
The answer is, and always has been, a hearty "no." To demand that faith in Christianity be of only verifiable proportions skirts around a whole lot of epistemological issues, and if skirting the complexities of epistemology won't work in science, I'm sure this is doubly so where Christian faith is concerned,
especially since they both admit to be different kinds of cognitive projects. In reflection of all of what I've just said, I'd say it's probably high time for folks on both sides of the Christian/Atheist spectrum to grapple with this as being yet another 'truth' which sits before their faces, yet remaining unrecognized, as is usual.
This brings up another issue. If Christianity is true would it then be "verifiable, falsifiable and/or otherwise scientifically sound"?
This is going to depend on how one defines, and the extent to which one then brings into account, the various considerations that are inherent to the fields of Historiography and the Philosophy of History, as well as Epistemology and Philosophical Hermeneutics. I've stated this before in other areas here on CF more than once.
There are some historical claims in Christianity, and God makes some claims/promises about life BEFORE death as well as life AFTER death.
They are claims, whether they are and to what extent they portend to be historical in nature always remains to be seen, just like many claims from the past. The way some of you skeptics talk, one would think that verification is an assured thing if something is true; but if there is one thing I'm sure of is it's that skeptics aren't really as sure of the results of a positivist, verificationist assessment of the world around them as they would have us think they are, nor are they as motivated to really affirm all of that as tell themselves that they are. Let's face it, Cloudy: the past is not simply a matter of figuring out some mathematical equation, and this is the case no matter how many Richard Carrier or Bart Ehrman books one can pile up, one on top of another.
.....I'm a Theistic Evolutionist, or Evolutionary, Existential Theistic Christian, or however someone may want to try to classify it all. I started with Carl Sagan and I've worked my way in life from there.........
