My Conclusion
My point is that the ultimate responsibility for this decision rests on you. Whatever decision you make about God, it should not be made in ignorance. It should not be made because you are a Christian who discovers philosophy and science that seems to contradict the teaching you have heard your whole life. Neither should it be made because you are too afraid to investigate the matter and discover that you are wrong, and that goes for the atheist, the agnostic, or the theist.
Do not fall onto Occam’s razor too quickly. Simplicity is not always a sign of truth. There are, in fact, certain difficulties either way that you turn if you would only stop to pay attention to them. Upon further research, you will find that both sides will have reasons for why those difficulties need not be so detrimental, but either way, you cannot stop seeking, ever.
The consequences are too great.
Cross Section 
I feel as though you contradict yourself on one or two points.
You say say that the decision to believe or not believe ultimately rests on each individual. Which I generally agree with. Then you say:
“Whatever decision you make … should not be made in ignorance. It should not be made because you are a Christian who discovers philosophy and science that seems to contradict the teaching you have heard your whole life.”
While it is true that each individual chooses to believe or not to believe and that his or her decision should not be made in ignorance if he or she is attempting to understand the universe and their role within it to a greater extent. But should’t his or her reasons rely on his or her ability to make logical claims that are then supported through their chosen belief system?
It seems as though you say that belief is up to each individual but that science and philosophy should not be used as “reasons” to deny systems that contradict them.
If this is true it seems to beg the question, what methods can one use to study and explain the universe if not philosophy and science? If one chooses to believe something that contradicts philosophy and science, in most instances, it then contradicts logic and reason.
Of course one could argue that philosophy and science are not the only ways of knowing things. That religion and faith can be ways of knowing and discerning things as well. And I would not argue that point as it has merit.
However, it seems that a problem occurs when using religion and faith, faith in the spiritual/religious context, as ways of knowing. They cannot be held to a standard of general reliability as can the claims of science and philosophy. Science and philosophy are bound to constantly prove or disprove their claims, causing each to constantly evolve and become, if you will, closer and closer to “truth.” Religion and faith in God cannot be falsified and therefore are much more difficult to study or discern true understanding from, at least from a logical standpoint.
All this to say. Religion and faith in God should not be automatically ignored by science and philosophy if one finds that science and philosophy leave room for their truth to stand. As you say, “Do not fall onto Occam’s razor too quickly. Simplicity is not always a sign of truth.” To which I agree.
But if one found with certainty, or even massive probability, that science and philosophy disproved their “faith” and “belief” then it would be hard to see that it would be logical or even reasonable to continue with that system. I don’t think that that day has come but if in fact it does, as you say, “you cannot stop seeking, ever.” Because ultimately, “truth” is what we are pursuing.
My aim was not to say that science and philosophy cannot be used in formulating a person’s worldview. Most people, upon studying science or philosophy for the first time, tend to fall into the trap of believing that faith and a religious worldview have no place in the conversation.