I'm not sure I'd go that far in saying that we must first have faith. In fact, I think its the reverse. God draws us first before we believe. I attend a Lutheran church now days and they don't teach that people will themselves into belief. God initiates the relationship.
This is, unfortunately, part of the problem with these issues. If you don't believe in a literal hell, then this argument really loses a lot of its
moral oomph, because if all that awaits me is annihilation, then oh well, that's sort of what I expected anyways, and it's not like God has any huge obligation to protect me from
that. Depending on whether you believe God wants a relationship or not, this argument changes drastically. The incredible litany of disputes in Christian Doctrine make any talk
about said doctrine necessary dependent on the various sectarian differences between disciplines. Which, in and of itself, should be a red flag, but that's an entirely different discussion.
But in this case, if God
does reach out to us at first, then... Well, why are there non-believers? Why are there
apostates? If God wants to draw us into belief, why the hiddenness? Like... You know the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?* The Vogons weren't omnipotent, but within about two minutes of them announcing their presence, every single person on earth knew that they existed and what they wanted. Even if we want to say he doesn't want to beat us over the head with evidence... If he wants to reach us, why doesn't he do so in a way that's clear?
*(If not: worth a read; they're reasonably short books and
incredibly funny and thought-provoking, and I guarantee you they'll be at the local library, given their status as all-time Sci-Fi classics.)
On that point, I think you make a very good point that you can't just convince yourself to have faith, that's not how it works in my experience. But, I do think you can surrender to the possibility of having faith. That's what Pascal was talking about in his famous wager. By living as if we have faith, we become receptive to faith, but we can't create faith for ourselves.
Yeah... The "dulling of intellect" he talks about in that? I'd consider that a very real consequence of faith, one that people probably shouldn't be so willing to put up with.
The fact you are here debating these issues is actually a very good sign. It means on some level at least, you are a truth seeker, even if you are not consciously aware of it.
IMO any debate where you are incapable of learning something or unwilling to change your position is a waste of time. I'm very explicitly here looking for the truth, or at least to expand my understanding. You'd be shocked how many people mistake rational skepticism for closed-mindedness, and take an unwillingness to, say, take a cite from NaturalNews seriously as confirmation of that suspicion.
I don't think a scientific worldview is the only possible way to view the world. There are times when a scientific description falls short.
I can agree, if we add two words onto the end:
thus far.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, after all. Go back a hundred years and show people a carefully-staged CGI film of a man turning into a lion, and people would probably think that a scientific description falls short in that case as well. Cure someone's leprosy, and they might consider it a miracle. If, in the future, we craft the technology to regrow amputated limbs, and that technology somehow traveled back in time to today, we'd probably marvel at the impossible thing where a scientific description "falls sort"... At least, for now.
I talked about this on a recent post in Whosoever Will, May Come. The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. Church might seem like a chore but its not always a picnic to find something better to do.
For those who enjoy Church, it can be a very positive experience. I won't deny this; the sense of community generated there can be quite overwhelming. For others, it's a chore that they don't enjoy and would rather not put up with but must. I'm sure there are better examples of religious belief wasting one's time, but they're probably a little less obvious.
I don't think God created Hell as a cosmic torture chamber, in fact I don't think God created Hell at all. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, as it's written in Genesis. No mention of hell. Hell is just the natural state were are born into, due to ancestral sins, we are born spiritually dead- materialism is our default reality. And sometimes Hell is not torture, sometimes its a primrose path where we get everything we want but we lose our soul in the process.
This interpretation of the bible certainly makes your religious beliefs a heck of a lot more moral, I'll give you that. As said above, the countless different doctrinal schisms of Christianity makes discussing any "general" doctrine difficult.
I do believe the Bible contains the revelation of Jesus Christ. that right there is God communication with you: Jesus is the revelation of God. The rest, the personal experiences and synchronicities, are not nearly as important to consider.
I think this reflects fairly poorly on God. If he thinks a 2000-year-old book containing at least one story that is necessarily a legend or fable (Noah's flood simply did not happen as written, I think we can agree on that) and quite a few more which seem incredibly unrealistic, a book written by humans, translated (and horribly mistranslated) by humans countless times, and with hundreds of versions currently flying around is adequate, then he clearly doesn't understand how people think, or how evidence works for us. Dillahunty gave an excellent talk on exactly how bad of an idea this one is.
I think you miss something here. God is free of passions or vices like pride and vanity. If he wants us to worship him, it's for some other reason, other than his enjoyment.
The entity afishamongmany described is one which created a system wherein we exist primarily to praise it. That sounds
incredibly vain to me.
I'm not a Calvinist so I don't believe God creates "pots" just to destroy them (that's a passage in Romans I think was taken well out of context, talking about a nation of people rather than an individual). There is a mystery to God's salvation, why some people believe and others don't, as somebody who attends a Lutheran church I can acknowledge that. But Lutherans also reject the idea that God creates anyone predestined to be destroyed, because we believe the witness of the Bible is against it. We don't point to speculative theology of God's meticulous control of all events as evidence of his glory, we point to Jesus dying for the sins of the whole world, and his rising from the grave and triumphing over his enemies as the way that God has chosen to glorify himself. It is a glory hidden from the world, and that is precisely why many other Protestant groups do not have this as the center of their theology.
Predestination is an entirely separate debate which I'd rather not get into here. But isn't it an issue that God
could help convince us, but doesn't? I mean, surely He knows exactly what it would take to make me believe, right?