And, interestingly, a lot of what you seem to be saying to present a good argument for theology are things I'd bring up to begin to argue against it. You seem to acknowledge that we have an inherent desire to look for the supernatural in emotional circumstances, that pretty much everything is colored by interpretation and is therefore subjective. But how do you think this supports what you're saying?
I mean, you must know that religions--and you can say, "Yes, religions, just not my religion," at this part, and that's fine--were usually made to explain natural forces that we just weren't equipped to understand at the time. And everything you're saying, in my mind, is really just reinforcing the human weakness that produced these religions and reduces some to clinging to them when they've outlived their original purpose. That same weakness that made them survive after we had those answers, after we produced laws and standards more humane and organized than that of any religious text I've ever seen.
I get that you think there are scientific reasons to pluck Christianity out of the bunch and promote it as truth, but if there's any fairness and objectivity in you, or the willingness to learn and be corrected--and I'd like to think that there must be--I am afraid you're about to be a little bit disappointed when you do that research for me. Like HM originally said, I'll be far more impressed with you and understanding of your position if you at least stick to what you know. To see you say that it is all faith, that it's all what makes you feel good, that the facts don't matter. After all, who can argue with that?
Small steps first. Is there something bigger than me? Yes? No?
Flow chart with the answer of a few questions.
That doesn't take scientific research, just a search of yourself.