Probable existence of a natural God

I do think it is a stretch to make any of these assumptions, but does it make more sense to make these kind of assumptions than it does to make an atheistic assumption?Which makes me ask the question, what is the atheistic assumption? From my understanding the point of atheism has to make is that we don't know but it's lazy to assume God. We can't explain why religion exists other than that we made it up to fool our future selves.I mean what have we done in Science when we didn't know how things were happening? We didn't say it just happens because it's supernatural God doing the work. We proposed an idea that sometimes seemed ridiculous and worked from there. I'm not trying to say that my preposterous story is what will actually happen or what might have happened, but I am saying that this is a starting point for understanding our existence. I am trying to take God as scientifically as I possibly can here.What I am trying to accomplish with this debate is figure out if it's possible, and if so to refine it.:) I'm trying to make the unifying theory that will combine Science and Religion. It's the M-theory of reality.So is it really the dumb answer to say "This kind of God is the best answer we have right now. We aren't 100% sure about it, and I'm sure that there are some elements that need to be reviewed, but this is the best answer to how WE came into existence at the moment." ORis it less intelligent to say "We don't know and we can't explain what caused the first cause, but there is no God." Because to me, this is a scientific hypothesis that we can actually consider in comparison to Religious propositions of how things came about. The best part here is that in no way should accepting this have any implication on an atheistic or agnostic lifestyle. It's something that we can accept as non-believers in religion without changing our lifestyle or our philosophical world view. O.K. That aside, why is this the best Scientific answer?Let's start by addressing Con's questions.1.Why would these "God" creatures want to keep themselves hidden?In order to create the same kind of conditions which they themselves had endured. Also, for entertainment.2. What is the point of subjecting us to pain? To learn? If their so advanced they can control the universe, don't they pretty much know everything?Again, it's to create similar conditions that they endured. They themselves don't want to learn. They want us to learn. Have you ever watched "The Truman Show" a 1998 film by Peter Weir? If you try to understand the psyche of the "show's" director then you will understand the kind of mindset I am projecting onto these "God" creatures.(1)3. Define "another dimension".A universe in which there are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. I guess I should have clarified by saying that we are part of a multiverse and we are but one universe in this multiverse. This is what I meant by "another dimension". I really should have said "parallel dimension". 4. How do they effect things on earth without us noticing? Remember, you have to keep within the bounds of known science.It depends on what things they wish to effect. Say that a meteor crashed into Earth and killed half of the population and that God did it. How? Well maybe they catapulted it from the other side of the universe with extreme precision using rockets or whatever type of propulsion technology they have. Hurricanes? While we have a basic understanding of weather patterns we still have anomalies. That is to say there are things that happen outside of our understanding. It doesn't mean they happened through supernatural means. I am assuming here that most intervention happened in the past and little to no intervention happens now. Again, this is an assumption, but most radical science findings started this way. The concise answer to number four is that they can because we don't understand all wordly functions and can't measure every factor that influences them. When there comes a time that we can they will presumably have stopped interfering. It's a convenient answer but it's the only one I can make. In response to your refutations of my previous points:1. Once again, the lack of any scientific support renders this rather pointless. There is a theory that there are separate dimensions. In other words, there is a chance. We don't know how it works, where it might be, or even whether it exists. You stretch this way too far to make any coherent sense.I wouldn't say that parallel dimensions lacks scientific support. We have M-Theory, String Theory, and Quantum Theory that provide some support for parallel dimensions. We aren't sure if any of these theories are 100% correct but that doesn't mean we can't utilize them to make the next step. The whole of our science is built off of theories, if we just threw them away we wouldn't get anywhere.2. This point is somewhat valid. However, in today's world, with very rational and cynical minds, there is little to nothing that we would take as magic. We have such an understanding of what is scientifically possible, and if this magical world is subject to the same rules, then nothing they could do would be taken as magic.Not sure what YOUR point is haha. My point was aimed more at swaying the theistic reader. Essentially what I was trying to say is that magic and advanced technology are the same thing. Magic has no supernatural properties, it just seems that way.3. That's a another debate entirely. I would argue that human nature is to survive and reach the top of the social hierarchy. Also, I'm not really sure what this point is attempting to prove. If it is showing that we as a race advance, then that is valid, although you really didn't need to make it so complicated.Yes, I was just trying to prove the point that man kind likes to advance. I feel like there will always be scientific minds who want to take the next step. I am trying to ask once we reach the top what happens? I think creation happens. This is a stretch admittedly, but I think it is justified in one key way. Time. I never said that these events happen in a timely fashion. It's possible that we reach a peak and just plateau for a while before we figure out that we want to play God. Eventually though, we still end up playing God at some point.4. Isn't that what we're debating?What I should have said was,With this view it would be correct in saying that "God creates man, or in other words, more advanced intelligent man creates something similar to man."it was a basic summation of my argument. Just in case people forgot.Response to Points Against:1. This theory doesn't answer that question. It only answers how WE were created. EVERYTHING is assumed to be created naturally, and that we are descended from a long line of races before us. It could be said that it would mean micro, mezzo, and macro evolution of intelligence as a whole, but that's irrelevant. Like I said before, this is just another Scientific theory we can consider in order to advance ourselves. It doesn't answer what would now become a uber-fundamental question of life's origin in this larger sense. There is no reason not to assume if it can help us advance in society and in science. This is why I referred to it as a unifying theory for religion and science.The thing here is that you don't know any better than I do and if we can in fact make some plausible assumptions and use them to our advantage then why not make them? This is how Science works.2. Refer to Q. 3 above.3. What makes you so unsure of evolution's possibilities? If we as humans can create computers that exceed our longevity and brain power then it is natural. If you consider the merging of human body with robot body as a mutation then evolution goes on through electronic mutation. It's not extremely likely, but it's more likely than saying no God exists at all. You can say M-Theory might be true or M-Theory isn't true. Which is the better choice?1. http://www.imdb.com...