Let us assume that I accept your arguments that there exists an entity that transcends the system of cause and effect. I, like you, define this as God. My God created everything but does not provide detailed answers for every aspect of existence. Neither does he give me any specifics about his qualities or the way he created everything. To figure this out is left as a task for me. He wants me to do this by focusing on the important things like the fact that I am here and what this means. He is utterly uninterested in me finding out unverifyable details about who was married to whom 2000 years ago and things like that. My God places no responsibility on me to impose my findings on others. However, my God makes it very clear that I have a great responsibility in respecting my peers and their understanding. He also instructs me to call a spade a spade.

In leaving out the dogmata, he has effectively taken away the basis of using him as a reference when spreading ignorence and hatred, and in opressing others. This means that what he lacks in described features and history, he makes up in integrity - No one has ever started a war or justified atrocities in his name (in addition of being omnipotent, he is also quite clever!). Looking at the track-record of organised christianity, we can clearly see that we are not talking about the same deity.

In order for someone to claim that they can present a proof, what they present must not be depending of who interprets it or who is the arbitror. This is the very definition of what truth is; it is not negotiable or relative. If I say that the proof presented applies equally to my definition of what God is as it does to a traditional, christian definition, your answer cannot be: "No, and it is like that just because I say so (or God says so)". If you do that, what you are defending is a "beleif system" and not a "proven reality". This is perfectly fine - you are entitled to do so but please let us call a spade a spade...