In the same way that it is fair that a woman who turns down a man's marriage proposal doesn't get the benefits of marrying him.

Except that the woman would presumably have irrefutable evidence that the man exists. And when she turns down his proposal, she's free to accept the proposal of others.

Second, that it is administered as a punishment, rather than that it follows as a natural consequence of rejecting God.

Why is it a natural consequence of rejecting god? If god's the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of everything, then he determined what the natural consequences of any action are. And that means that he determined that rejecting him would lead to hell or whatever. And I don't see any way of looking at that as something other than a punishment.

Most believe that people will be judged on the basis of what they know, rather than what they don't know.

Alright. That means the bar is lower for people who know less. And that means that if it's god's goal to save as many people as possible--and the Bible tells us that it is--then the best thing to do is to make it so that as many people as possible know as little about Christianity as possible. That way, the bar would be low enough to maximize the number of people that get saved.

There's an even more sinister way to proceed. Assuming that adults know more than children, then in a world where you're judged according to what you know, it would be merciful to kill children. The younger the better, because younger children know less, so the bar will be lower for them, so they'll have a higher chance of getting into heaven.

That's quite the moral system god's set up.

I am certain that Christianity is true in the same way that I am certain that there is a transcendent morality, or that my life has meaning other than the propagation of my DNA. I'm not certain of it in the way I am certain that 2+2=4.

This is just a convoluted way of saying that you're not certain about the truth of Christianity, but you don't want to admit that.

Some would call it an assumption, but I have good reasons for believing all of those things with what we might call "certainty".

What good reasons do you have for accepting the claims that Christianity makes?

I find the testimony of the Apostles that Jesus was raised from the dead, which they maintained under torture and even unto death, to be compelling.

First of all, how do you claim to know what the testimony of the Apostles is?

Second, why do you find those testimonies reliable? Why do you find them more reliable, for example, than the testimonies of witnesses to Joseph Smith's golden plates?

If there never was a Resurrection, of course, then all Christian hope is in vain and we are to be pitied above all men.

And what reason is there to accept that there was a resurrection?

The problem is, most naturalists aren't nihilists. They keep acting as though they are quite certain that transcendent morality and meaning exist. But the existence of those things flings the door wide open to the possibility of a soul.

Let's say naturalism must lead to nihilism. So what? That doesn't mean that Christianity is true.