Probable existence of a natural God

That's the beauty of the theory though. This very realistically merges the supernatural and intangible reality of religion with the cold hard empirical views of science. It's a step in the right direction for humanity if we can use it to end religious conflict and bring science to the forefront of the public.In talking with many somewhat rational religious believers they tell me that it always comes down to one thing: faith. If we can shift that faith into this unifying theory that is dynamic in it's form then we now have a loose form of religion that is no longer controlled by clergy or the papacy, it is controlled by the scientific community. I also see where this part of my argument is very dangerous, but this theory is an appeal to emotional appeasement. All religious believers will argue that faith is not a science it's a feeling. It's a feeling that you get. It's God. Now the problem there is that they "feel" a dogmatic and controlling God that tells them how to eat, sleep, and breathe. I think it would be correct in saying that at some point or another we have all felt as if we were subject to some kind of higher power. We have all felt that sense of "God" and that curiousity to know more about the God that created us. I suppose I am making the natrualistic fallacy here, but it's natural to want to know and feel God. How can it therefore be worse of a choice to operate under this vague, deistic, and dynamic God? Are you really willing to say that your instinct is flat out wrong? Theism requires supression of the mind, but Atheism requires supression of emotion. I want to combine the two as if emotion was some kind of tangible evidence. I realize very clearly that what I am saying here is complete non-sense to any with an empirical evidence based mindset. For this theory to sit on all fours it requires one to assume emotion, feeling, or intuiton as evidence that works in tandem with current scientific views. Logically, concsciously, rationally, it would make no sense to, but that's because intuiton is an unconscious process. Are we going to keep on denying that we are subconscious creatures? It's true that this theory set's its footholds on weak evidence. I won't deny that. But it sets out to explain something that we haven't been able to explain yet. What are the reasons that religion was created? Purely to control the minds of it's followers for years to come? Solely to inspire irrational behavior and promote false moral values? Why would any human do this? Do you mean to tell me that every religious higher up in today's world, the Roman, Greek, and Aztec world ALL purposely decieve in order to have power? Their life's work would have revolved around spinning such elaborate tales all for what? To fool pretty witty at the end of the day having known they fooled the world? I think if anything that's a tall tale to believe in. My theory proposed that it could be any number of "Gods" fooling around with humanity because they want US to learn and advance. It could be possible that they wish to entertain themselves as they watch our religious squabbles. We are their entertainment child. They want drama, they want struggle, but the still want a happy end. What I am asking for people to consider is basically this: At the end of the day, ALL evidence considered, it's more probable to say that this Deistic type of God exists, rather than No God at all.