Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.

[Tempus]

---

If #1 is true, you'd still have your work cut out to make a logical argument that it's possible to know god intuitively. A logical conclusion is reached by a logical argument, which must be both sound and valid to justify said conclusion. Logical arguments can be false though if, for example, they don't take into account relevant information. In such cases it could be because this information constitutes an "unknown unknown" - i.e., a necessary variable which is not only unaccounted for, but it's very existence is outside the scope of current knowledge. Logical arguments are used to determine how justified we are in believing things and aid in discovering new things, but they don't necessarily adhere to reality. I think what I've said here is right, someone correct me if I'm wrong!

For a logical argument about a god to begin to take form we would need some premises which were true to create an argument from; something like "a god exists", for example. If a god exists but we don't know about it we can't make logical arguments about it.

---

Well to me if God exists, he can give us knowledge of anything he wants. This seems to be a solid premise.

If we take a god's existence as a given that still tells us nothing of its disposition toward humans. Your scenario hinges on a lot of ifs. The god can give us knowledge of its existence if it wants. The god could be the basis of morality* if it was interested in well-being of humans. I also see no reason why a being who doesn't biologically reproduce would be a "he" either.

*Have a look at the Euthyphro dilemma.

Aside from that, if he exists and we are linked to him, it seems possible that we can be aware of this link.

Yes, if someone were all-powerful they would have that ability. You know what they'd also have? Your phone number. And your address. And the ability to take human (or at least physical) form and perform miraculous deeds, demonstrate foreknowledge and repeat your thoughts to you to at least partially establish their divinity. Clearly at least slightly confused - why use such an error prone method of communication?

Also if the nature of greatness, honour, goodness, all have him as the eternal basis, then I don't see why they wouldn't point to Eternal Basis and Person-hood of God.

I think also if we a spirit/soul, then spiritual knowledge, eyes of the soul, is very possible.

Naturally if God exists, he can create us with knowledge of himself. The knowledge would be based on reality and a link to him.

If God is like the Sun behind the rays of morality, greatness, honour, why shouldn't we able to perceive him?

Basically if a god exists it's a fact of reality. I don't really see the point if saying "oh, if this exists, this, this, and this would happen!" I mean, to have fun and wonder about what could be or hypothesise is fine, but to continually muse over the same thing when even its most basic assumption hasn't been established is, to me, wasteful.