Hello soulcalm17

[Belacqua]

unless sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated that a deity is possible, and exists

I'm curious why you think that a God, if it existed, would be the sort of thing that could be demonstrated with objective evidence. It looks to me as though you may be begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī), an informal fallacy. 

I say this because in the Western theological and philosophical tradition, no one says that God is known through empirical evidence. Beginning with Plato and Aristotle, on through Plotinus, and of course all the way through Spinoza and Hegel, God is not a sensible object (that is, knowable through the senses) but an intelligible object (known only through the mind). 

In general, the philosophers' chain of reasoning begins with something undeniable about the world -- e.g. "there is something rather than nothing," or "things change." From there their reasons for concluding that a God exists are not empirical ones. No philosopher you can name relies on the "we have no other explanation therefore God" fallacy that you point to.

Some theologians rely on prophecy or revelation for specific aspects of their God -- for example, that he is a trinity. But all of them also hold that through natural theology -- without special revelation -- the existence of God can be proven. Just not with the sort of evidence that science uses. 

For these people, demanding empirical evidence for God would be like looking for a very large prime number with a telescope. That would be a category error, using sensible means to look for an intelligible object. 

I'm NOT saying you should accept any of the arguments that these people have made. I'm only pointing out that your demand for a certain kind of evidence leaves unaddressed all of the philosophical and theological reasons people have for believing in God.