Theory number 3.

[Mystic]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

...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?