What is the logic in "life after death"?

[SteveII]

Billions of people alive right this minute have discovered him not difficult to find. You exaggerate the hurdles to boost your point.  

Please let me know how to discover your god without my having to appeal to fallacious arguments (like ad populum fallacy, in the first sentence in your response), insufficient demonstrable evidence, and lack of reasoned argument. [1]

Far from exaggeration. I could list paragraphs of legitimate hurdles that have to be overcome for me to justify belief. [2]

We are hardwired to believe in the supernatural, he is evident in the natural world, if you do hear his message from the NT, it is compelling to so many (that tells you something), and if you have not heard the gospel message, he will judge you based on your response to what has been revealed to you.

No, we are hardwired to be pattern seeking beings and agency detectors. This hardwiring translates to belief in the supernatural. [3]

There is no evidence in the natural world other than the natural. Our pattern seeking and exaggerated agency detection superimposes gods over the natural world. [4] 

A distinction you might have missed is that God wants a person to admit on the inside that he/she is incomplete and in need of a relationship with God. That relationship has been made possible thought the plan of salvation outlined in the NT. It is the desire of this relationship and the change that goes on in your heart that has to be the draw to God. If it took personal appearances and big flashy miracles, a choice to believe in God would be based on other things and not the necessary internal desire to change/have relationship.

I am well aware of the dogma and doctrine.

How would I go about accepting any of what you state above, without first believing that this god exists? Sorry, but I am not susceptible to circular logic. [5]

1. A response to your assertion that God is somehow hard to find with all the confusion by pointing out the billions who didn't find things as confusing as you make them to be is certainly not a fallacy. It is undercutting evidence that your premise of as to the hiddenness of God is wrong. 

2. Did you try to find the answers to these supposed hurdles? There are so few objections to Christianity that have not been answered over and over for thousands of years. 

3. That is just a theory you could not possibly know is true or ever have a hope of testing (non-falsifiable). 

4. The very existence of the natural world is evidence.

5. What is evidence of God existing? Miracles? There is a whole catalog of them in the NT. Nothing circular there.

---

Except there have been hundreds of millions (if not billions) of adult conversions over the centuries. How do you explain that if there was 'no evidence'?

The same way I'd explain conversions to other god beliefs besides yours. [1]

This 'no evidence' tune shows a  gross lack of understanding of the issues. You can say all you want that you don't find the evidence compelling, but to say there is no evidence is just nonsense repeated by atheists often enough that a good portion of you actually believe it. Sad.

I always state that there is insufficient and poor evidence. Anecdotal evidence is evidence, just very bad evidence.

It is not our fault that what theists claim is evidence is not convincing. Would you give any credence to similar types of evidence as you provide, provided by believers in other gods to support their beliefs? [2]

1. Which is? 
2. I find the evidence compelling. Would I if I was not raised in a Christian home? I don't know the answer to that. However, we can see from tens of millions of adult conversions a year that some find it compelling. I do think that Christianity is the best evidenced religion of all time. Even if you find it insufficient, wouldn't you agree on that point?