Hello soulcalm17

[soulcalm17]

humans cannot possibly know the exact name of a person in the future, 

That's not true, I am very confident someone called Richard will exist in the future. It's pretty easy, I can even claim their father will have the name Robert, and the odds are pretty good I have predicted something accurately. 

 it can be concluded that humans get it from outside themselves.

No it can't, not rationally anyway, you are a) using what appears to be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and b) violating Occam's razor. 

there was information about the future, then there must be someone who makes that information. If someone makes it, it means there is an entity. This entity can convey messages. Indicating that this entity is alive and intelligent.

...and human, we already know humans write books. Assuming your claims about how accurate the predictions are can be objectively verified (I am dubious), and further assuming that it came true exactly as described (again I am dubious), and then assuming the probability can be calculated as extremely unlikely, all you'd have is a mystery you couldn't explain, to suggest the lack of an explanation evidences anything is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 
 

You may call this entity whatever you like

Firstly, you have not demonstrated that any entity other than the humans who wrote those books, are even possible, secondly the notion one can call this imagined and unevidenced entity whatever one likes, is an entirely subjective opinion. 

(theist of course called it God), what is important is its atributes as I mentioned.

 I disagree, since you assigned those attributes arbitrarily, it is little more than begging the question fallacies. You need to:

1) Demonstrate sufficient objective evidence any deity or anything supernatural is even possible. 
2) Demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that a deity exists. 
3) Demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that it si the deity you imagine to be real. 

Your argument here is fallacious and thus irrational. It is also of course used by adherents of other religions to make identically fallacious claims about other deities humans imagine to be real. It's poor reasoning, using weak arguments.

Arguments about the cause of something do not have to bring about that thing physically.
For example:
1. When I find a book, I conclude that the book must have been designed by a human. I do not need to find the specific human who wrote the book. But my conclusion is true.
2. You must have come from your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather. I do not need to physically meet your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather. But my conclusion is true.
3. The universe began with the big bang. I also do not need to see with my eyes at this moment how the big bang happened. But my conclusion is true based on the traces of the universe.