Theory number 3.

[Mystic]

That is what I mean. Science has it's own application, it doesn't replace all we should place our beliefs in.

There it is: the common theistic argument that god is beyond science. It is important to note that this does not work for any theistic belief other than deism. If god interfered with the earth in any way, we would be able to scientifically prove that he had done so, unless he deliberately concealed his actions. As for deism, how could one prove god? Is god even still alive? Even if god were proven, would it have much significance?

It's rationally possible for science to prove a Creator. It's not rationally possible for science to prove "God" as in the "Ultimate Being" let alone "a god" as in a being worthy of worship. This is simply by the methods employed by science.

We can ask questions, "how can one prove morality", "how can one prove value". My question to that, is does one need to. Or can we know without such proofs.

Assume God exists. He would know why he exists as opposed to not. Assume he is necessary. He would understand why he is necessary and that he is. We wouldn't have knowledge as clear as he does of himself, but why can't there be a descended knowledge from God that is derived from his knowledge of himself whom is the basis of existence (assuming that is what he is)?

Suppose it's impossible for anything to exists on it's own except ultimate existence, while everything would be constantly dependant on that being for existence.

Suppose God knew that. Why wouldn't we be able to know that, given that God knows it in properly basic manner?

Although this doesn't prove God or that we know God, I would say, sometimes you have to ask, if the proposition is true, then does it explain this and that.