Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Belacqua]

I would say randomness is subjective to us, as human beings. Randomness can simply be our misunderstanding of deeper - or unknowable? - reasons of why some laws appear to describe absolute randomness - I don't think that's actually the case, but let's push the definitions to their limits -.

Also the fact that we understand the system better than we did a few centuries ago, shouldn't make the reasons we believed in the most superior deity, obsolete. Science already hit a plateau in very ambitious topics [the uncertainty principle, Gödel's incompleteness theorems in mathematics, etc] . 

Yes, this makes sense to me. Things that seem random or inexplicable now may be explained in the future, or may just be beyond what humans are capable of understanding. 

There's a speech somewhere on YouTube in which Noam Chomsky addresses the limits of human understanding. He points to studies with rats in mazes, in which the rats can solve fairly complicated math problems in order to get through the maze, but apparently are incapable of solving a maze based on prime numbers. Primes are just beyond rat understanding. And though people understand somewhat more than rats, it seems very likely that there are all kinds of things beyond what our brains can handle. 

It's becoming increasingly clear that our scientific method will remain absolutely silent on the big questions, and that we should seriously reconsider our opinion about theology, arguing from scripture, etc. Because they are all we have.

The first part of this seems certain to me. Science will never and can never address certain things that humans need. I was raised without religion, so I don't necessarily think that we should turn to theology when we ponder the non-science questions. Still, the fact that religion has been a fundamental part of the human psyche for all of history means that I'm not one of those people who just want to toss it all. 

I think any religious theologian you can look up will essentially argue for a personal God. To me, a personal god simply means a god who actually communicated with people, or a handful of people, in a language they understand, and gave very specific instructions about how to live their lives for the promise of some real happiness, eternal blissfulness, etc.

This is the part I have to work on. For the most part I have focused my studies on Neoplatonic tradition, in which the One or the Ideal isn't seen as personal in the way that the monotheistic religions see it. It's not clear to me yet how Neoplatonic Christians (e.g. Pseudo-Dionysius) reconcile eternal impassibility with personhood. I'm looking forward to learning more.

If we agree that any entity can't give what it doesn't have

If I'm understanding you right, this is an Aristotelian concept, and so perhaps something I can get a handle on. To pass  a quality on to different things, the causal force must possess that quality. 

Most of I read about theology in favor of Islam is essentially in Arabic. I think however that any content you can find by the so called Hamza Tzortzis, can be useful, including his book. He does take the time to argue for everything up to the personal god of Islam

And there is yet another part of the big wide world of which I am completely ignorant. I have never read a single word of Muslim theology, except insofar as Avicenna or Averroes relates to Christian thought. So much to learn.....