I am really sorry for what you are about to read... I was going through the forum... and I just could not help but notice being drawn to this topic... and here is my reply to the evidence provided by tammy....
'Humanity has shown a need to seek out spiritual'
From the deistic point of view that is not really a great argument. The idea of Deism is to believe in a creator...who created and them most likely left us to our own devices or ceased to exist. Lets take the meaning of the word 'spiritual' in that sentence. It seems to me that this particular word has changed his meaning over the thousands of years. We used to associate spiritual with such evens as thunderstorm, earthquakes or hurricanes. And that was simply because of our lack of knowledge. Since then we gained understanding of such things and we know that they have got nothing to do with Zeus or Thor or Posaidon. We accept a logical and a more naturalistic explanation... so I think it is safe to conclude, that 'spiritual' in your... what could be only described as an assertion and a very rich generalisation, is simply 'something that we do because we are yet to understand why'. And as always... keeping to our habit we label it with a god. An argument from ignorance if you will.
'Humans have fantastic imagination'
Yes... you are correct... but surely... that is not an argument for your case is it? It suggests that we are more likely to be superstitious, gullible, afraid and most likely to make something up based on what someone said, or 'what we thought we saw'. Example of aliens is especially unfortunate. You, yourself said that you 'have never known a single person, who can conceive of something that has been built upon previous knowledge, or observation of the physical world'... that is why for example god is a man in the bible... man has power.... it's all about men... because it was written by humans! And I would say that you are quite unfortunate to not have known anyone with quite an abstract mind.
'Life does not come from nothing'
It's simply an expansion of 'How out of nothing you get something'... well if life does not come from nothing then how was God created? He lives … right?
Evidence for God, the Father of Christ (theism? Really?)
You stated that Christ is the basis of your entire faith and from what you wrote it seems that you do believe in him... but you state nothing about God? Unless they are the same person?
You also make a statement or more of a claim that you can see the truth in Christ's teachings. Which ones in particular? Golden Ru le? Lets have a look at just that one teaching of his “All things, therefore, that YOU want men to do to YOU, YOU also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean''(NWT) Seems like a good thing, right? But... I am sorry to say it's neither original nor unique... nor that great to be honest! Let's look at alternatives...
In 300 BC we have ' This is sum of duty. Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you' in Brahamanism.
'Hurt not others in ways that you yourself could find hurtful' in Buddishm.
And my favourite.
Around 500 BC 'Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do NOT unto others that you would NOT have them do to you'' in Confucionism.
And I personally find the negative 'DO NOT' far more superior that Christ's 'DO'. I mean... think about it. Do unto others as you would want them do to you.... what if you are a sadist? Or what if you simply have a bad taste? :)
And that is just one example of how... unoriginal Christ's teachings were? And let's take a look at Jesus... he was contradictory, had fits of anger, supported slavery by incorporating it in his teachings, was disrespectful to his mother.... and his teachings were neither original nor that great...
Imagine if we were in a court right now. Would any of the personal evidences or even testimony contained in gospels stand on their own? Or would they be dismissed as simply speculations and creations of someone's imagination? Would they be taken into consideration? Or rather... should they?
Gospels of the new testament are the only evidence of the existence of Christ. Which is unusual, taken that there were a few historians active during the time, when he supposedly has lived (We have a mention of a Christ in form of a movement supposedly named after him). He never wrote anything himself (allegedly). So we are truly just left with the gospels... but how can we take them as evidence taking that they are contradictory(I mean they can not get the year of Jesus' birth right!!) and contain information not synchronised with the true historical events. How can anyone take that as evidence?!
The Spirit of Christ speaks
I will be honest I did not read the whole text of this part of the post. But allow me to quote late Christopher Hitchens.
'I would like to be next to you, when if you were walking down the street someone would run up to you shouting 'I CAN HEAR THE VOICE OF GOD!!!!' Would you throw your arms around him and say 'YOU TOO?! WHAT LUCK!'
Thanks for reading and hope I did not offend anyone