I've been doing my research on Christianity, as you've told me to. And have arrived at quite the surprising conclusion. That Jesus of Nazareth never existed, let alone have been the Jewish Messiah, not to speak of God. I base this conclusion off the Dead Sea Scrolls by the Essenes Jewish sect of that time and The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus. There is a striking similarity between Christianity and the Essenes in their usage of myrrh and perfumes during liturgical rites(https://dssenglishbible.com/exodus%2030.htm) and another hint would be that Josephus mentions three Jewish sects, the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link182HCH0001). There was also a fourth xenophobic doctrine or political faction if so you'd call it, the Zealots(https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-3.html). The Zealots were markedly anti-Roman and anti-Greek while there is no mention of their religious practices. The Bible mentions that Pontius Pilatus was the governor of Judea at the time of Jesus's execution(Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23 and John 19 https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/King-James-Version-KJV-Bible). So we can rule out the Zealots that were present in The First Jewish Roman War and are not mentioned in the Antiquities. Another peculiar aspect is that there is an insertion in The Antiquities of the Jews(obviously out of place and not Josephus' own work) inside the text concerning Pilatus(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link182HCH0003). The insertion is as follows

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, 9 those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; 10 as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. "

There are heavy scholarly complaints concerning this insertion, called Testamonium Flavonium, including my own. It appears to have been inserted by a Christian historian called Eusebius(https://www.jstor.org/stable/43723559) as this was its first mention.

The only other mentions of Jesus of Nazareth are in the New Testament, written by his disciples. While both the Pharisees (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=pharisee&version=KJV) and the Sadducees(https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=sadduc&version=KJV) are mentioned in the New Testament, and not in a good way, there is silence upon the Essens(https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=essen&version=KJV). Now, we may compare the doctrine of the Essens with that of Chrstianity and notice a striking similarity(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link182HCH0001). From here we can conclude that the Essens ought to have been disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. However, the fact that there is no connection between the Essens and Jesus of Narzareth gives us the fact that he never was their leader, as he ought have been given their similarities in doctrine.

Now, we have a passage concerning John The Baptist in the Antiquities of the Jews(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link182HCH0005). His story is strikingly different from that in the gospels as his baptism was meant to cleanse the body, not the soul. This tells us that the story of Jesus of Nazareth took a false succession from John the Baptist(https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=bapti&version=KJV).

By argument of silence from all indifferent historians and the lies of the favoring historians we may conclude that Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

You asked me to judge the Christian Church and this is my judgment, it spreads fanaticism and clouds good judgement by claims to authority, it spreads lies and violence by claims to God, while it would be insanity of our own to not take into account the good it has spread. In contrast to Islam, at least in modern times, the Christians never acted in such insanity and violence as can be found in some parts of the Muslim world. Their authority clings to some reason found in theology and they have spread the works of other, wiser men. Heraclit, Socrates, Plato, Aristotel to name a few. All in all they're are human, neither wholly against God neither accepting him to the end. However, my discernment tells me I no longer require membership to their organization, I may keep them as advisors as I ought not reject truth wherever it may come from, however it is time for me to move on. Right now, the closest people to God I know are the philosophers(PhD), the medics(MD) and the judges(JD). Concerning the highest among them, I heard of many from John the Evangelist(who said that God was truth) to Witgenstein, from the doctors we all know Hipocrates and from the judges Romnia's Constitutional Court just dismissed the first round for the presidential elections on grounds of the inadequate familiarity with one of the candidates(Calin Georgescu).

I for one am frightened by the people that surround me, that they were capable of such a mistake as to vote someone they've only heard of from TikTok, or at best has been promoted by some famous individuals. Furthermore in his discourse the man contradicts himself every 10 minutes and is steed fast in his confidence in his own errors. Biden once said in a confident voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8a4iEuDAQ however Biden was old and he only had aggravating episodes of dementia leading to his resignation. However Calin Georgescu is like this all the time. That's why he could only attract an audience on TikTok due to the length of the videos and perhaps rehearsals. If you see the guy having an interview taken, you don't know weather you should run from this country or laugh.

If you want an argument for the existence of God I am afraid that due to under-determination we know nothing outside our own experience. The idealist doctrine, however, states that thought, truths are the same whoever thinks them(Liebniz law states this in a way). So we may know, in a metaphysical mind, the world as it is and parts of God for that matter. However, this rational knowledge is uncertain given the axiomatic nature of human reason, that we base our reason on axioms. Sentences we find just not just out of argument, as they are at the foundations of arguments, but out of our entire mind.

However, Kant had an interesting approach to the problem, he postulated that humans hold some axioms regardless of their choices and that they can be used to construct syllogisms. In his Critique of practical reason he states that humans rely on ethics to further good ends, however we must believe that good ends will be met if we act in good intentions. This gives the world the property that in our finite mind, when we listen to goodness a better world is produced. I know nothing in an atheist science that has said anything of this sort. That is, the world, is ordered according to goodness more so than to General Relativity or String Theory.

On the theoretical ground, I once told Mister Cristian Kevorchian while I was his student at the University of Bucharest: The idea that God exists comes from a logical error that is unavoidable(therefore axiomatic in Kant's Pure Reason sense): That whatever we may think, we build from our own intuition. Thus, our entire understanding is human in nature regardless of weather we think it or not. A world ruled to such an extent by a human mind, the solution presents itself(God is human, at least in the part we know Him).

Concerning monotheism, I only have the complaint towards polytheism that the world is not presented to us as a conflicting understanding as one would expect had there been more than one God. Rather, it is represented as a single consistent whole.

Concerning His name, I don't think he has one, neither needs one. Humans use names to distinguish each other in speech. However, He is the one God, what need there be to distinguish him from others?

In conclusion, we don't need Christ to know God. A child that is lost in the jungle as an infant is raised by the monkeys that bring him water(The anthropologist on Discovery said that they were marveled as that species of monkey was not known to use tools). He never hears the word Jesus, yet God cares for him still. I think we all know Him at least in the world and the judgement He has revealed to us.

Concerning atheism, it presents man with a horrible position in which he no longer seeks God. His thought and actions become polluted as a result. The only secular state on Earth that outright atheist, places its ruler as somewhat close to divinity. It's people live in terror. They threaten the whole world with their madness. It is a country one doesn't even think to visit as a tourist for most of the time, North Korea. As such atheists become ethical and theoretical "innovators", they stray so far from God that they put all of us in danger.