On Non-belief

[Mister Agenda]

Premise 1 is a strawman and/or presuppositional fallacy.
"1) If God exists, he desires for us to know x is true, where x is the set of propositions we need to believe in so that we can be saved."

You claim knowledge of God's desires.
You claim the need for salvation.
You claim a set of "required" propositions.

There's a difference between a premise as used in logic and presupposition, which is a whole different can of worms.

So you don't agree with the premise, is what you're saying, in a very nasty way.

---

"Faith" is a relationship, the main component being trust. When a child chooses not to touch the stove, the kid has demonstrated faith in his parents.

Should the child's faith in his parents extend to believing them if they tell him he shouldn't touch the stove because at night it turns into a child-eating lion that will devour sleeping children who have touched it during the day?

Because the child of your example is only showing faith that his parents are truthful and that they are in a position to know if it's safe to touch the stove. I trust my Aunt Matilda, and I wouldn't touch a stove if she warned me against it. If she told me the man across the street is having an affair with an Italian countess, I might ask how she knows the woman is a countess. But if she told me there are four dogs playing poker in a special habitat on Venus, I'd worry about her mental health, because even if it were true, she would have no way of knowing it.

You're not just claiming a stove is hot, you're claiming to know the origin of the universe is a who, and to know what that who likes and wants. Even if it were actually true, I don't believe you're in a position to know it, and all you have to offer in support of your truthfulness is 'trust me'.