Theory number 3.

[Darkstar]

What I mean by Ultimate Being is that is greatest possible being. "God" is defined as that. As for a god, it depends whether being super immensely powerful is enough to be worthy of worship. Personally, I believe "power" is of the lowest manifestations of God, and "ultimate power" without being "ultimate love" would not be worthy of worship. I believe God is worthy of worship due to his moral qualities, and without those qualities, I would not revere her/him/it to the extent of worship.

I agree. I get the feeling that the only thing that justifies god's actions in the bible is because he says they are good, and he is so powerful no one dares to question him.

God would know exactly what it would take to convince us, but does not do so.

This is true, but is there a possible benevolent reason behind that? Perhaps as I said, he doesn't want knowledge of God to be dry and without will power of the soul/mind to see.

He could have given us stronger souls... If you don't believe in a soul, then you will see no need to strengthen it. If the initial conditions plausibly allow many people to have defective souls, then he did something wrong.

If he is a deistic god, then he would have no reason to, but then what is the point of trying to find him, and why would he give us the ability to spiritually know him?

I'm confused as to the definition of a deistic God. I believe in a caring God, and that there is (a) benevolent wise reason(s) he isn't constantly communicating to us or answering prayers.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

How can we 'know' god without such proofs when some people clearly don't 'know'?

I've made three theories now to answer this question, and I still don't know the answer .

But it is still more likely that it is not self-delusion and is actual experience, even though you cannot explain it and psychology has a scientifically valid answer?

Also, there is an evolutionary explanation to morality.

Even if there is an evolutionary proof that morality is binding, and not a delusional belief, humanity didn't believe in morality due to this proof.

Okay, I will grant you this. However, we have now found the root of this understanding. The claimed roots of this 'spiritual' understanding are defined in a way that they cannot be found without proving god directly. Everyone 'believes' in morality who is not insane. Yet, atheists such as Richard Dawkins are clearly intelligent, and yet they are alleged to be missing a self-evident truth. How can this be?

...assume...suppose...suppose that...yeah, that can really be debated with so many assumptions thrown in. Not to mention the that you left out the fact of god knowing his own reason for existing is also an assumption; if he is simply creator and not ultimate being he might not know.

I think you got a little frustrated here? If we are going to rule out that knowledge of God is possible, we should assume all possible explanations to why knowledge of God is possible and then show it to be impossible...or do you disagree?

Fair enough. And yes I was a little frusturated. I apologize if I appeared to be genuinely mad, or was rude. I had the idea that we were debating something of a slightly broader scope.