Theory number 3.

[Darkstar]

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.

And how do you know this? Sure, we could not prove absolutely that he is the ultimate being, but one would reach a certain point where it would have to be admitted that he was powerful beyond total comprehension. God would know exactly what it would take to convince us, but does not do so. 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? If you think about it, there isn't really spirituality to a deist because there is likely no afterlife, assuming one adheres strictly to the idea of an apathetic creator.

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.

How can we 'know' god without such proofs when some people clearly don't 'know'? Also, there is an evolutionary explanation to morality.

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?

...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.

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.

If magical leprechauns really do cause rainbows, then that explains how rainbows are caused and we don't need to study light refraction...see, that doesn't work. With such a monumental pressuposition (as in god) this argument cannot hold weight