Isn't it similarly presumptious to state that "God would fall for this", if it was what He set up?
But it seems preposterous that a god could set up something so unfair and nonsensical.
Two people disobey God's capricious instructions. God chooses (or is forced) to torture and kill them and all their descendants (or at least to allow that to happen).
To fix this problem (of his own creation) God sends his son (who may or may not be himself) to live in the Middle East for a few years and to be executed as a criminal, and then brings him(self) back to life. This somehow wipes out the consequences of the original indiscretion, except that nothing noticeably different happens. Humans continue to have bad things happen to them, they grow old and they die.
However, if they believe that this man who lived in the Middle East many years ago was actually (the son of) God, then - and only then - does the payment affect them. But they still suffer, grow old and die. The difference between those who believe and those who don't is indistinguishable until they die whereby members of the former group - or more accurately, noncorporeal entities with the memories and personalities of those people - go to "heaven" to live in eternal bliss, while those in the latter group get to be eternally tortured in "hell".
The details of this scenario are so contentious that people who believe one version of it have ostracised, tortured and killed people who believe an ever-so-slightly different version, although many - particularly in recent years - claim that only belief is necessary, and the details aren't important. Unfortunately, these people are usually unable to provide a reason to believe, and claim that belief must come first and evidence will be provided later. This effectively excludes reasonable people from their ranks.
Ultimately, it was these absurdities combined with a complete lack of evidence for any of its claims that led me to reject Christianity.
