Actually, my statement is a hypothesis. It lacks the backing to be a fully blown theory. Though I could as a friend of mine, a rather renowned anthropologist and expert in early human culture, who actually got me on the track, maybe he has a few pointers. What I know so far is simply this: Human tried throughout its existence to explain his existence. The moment we became self aware was most likely also the birth of our quest for a reason to be. Some of the oldest questions our ancestors probably asked themselves, as can be deduced from murals in caves, seem to be (aside of "where's the food?", of course) "where do we come from?", "where are we going?" and "why are we here?"
Religions excel at answering those questions. Especially the last one is one that science cannot answer, for the obvious reason that there is no "scientific" answer to the meaning of life. Life has no meaning by itself, life just is. Religion is the only thing that could give an answer to that. A more "modern" approach would be that we try to detach it from Gods and call it "moral" or "humanistic" that we observe a certain rule set, but whether you call it morals or a religious moral code, the effect is the same. From a Freudian-psychological point of view, that entity would be considered your "super-ego", your cultural-moral guide. Whatever you call it, it's the cultural aspect of your being.
That is usually actually quite heavily influenced by religion. Yes, even in atheists. I don't consider myself a very religious person (as one might have guessed), but still I think the general idea behind the 10 commandments to be quite ok. Not stealing, killing, lying... yeah, that's something I can understand and consider a "good" thing. And hey, who doesn't like to have a free Sunday?
Ok, I think I start to ramble, let's return to your post...
What I wanted to show is that humans needed Gods. To explain things that could not be explained any other way. And even today we cannot explain everything yet. Yet. We're working on it. But this is no Xena episode. Just because there are a few plotholes we can't fill yet, "a wizard did it" is not a suitable answer. It is an easy answer, no doubt about that.
Why do things fall to the ground? Because God wants them to. Why do people die? Because God likes that. Why do I get hungry? Because God wants you to eat. How does my TV work? God makes it so. You see? It's easy. I needn't even think. God is the answer to everything. And it's so elegant too, because how do you want to disprove me? Do you claim you know what God wants? Unless you're religious, you don't even think he exists and you want to tell me what God wants, can or will do?
"Naaaah", I can hear you say, "c'mon, don't be silly. We already know that God needn't make things fall to the ground, that's what gravity is for." Yes. But travel back to, say, 1500 and ask people why things fall to the ground. "God makes them" is a pretty solid explanation. Why? Because Newton didn't discover gravity yet. We have no answer to the phenomenon that things fall down when you let go of them. God makes a pretty neat explanation, an easy exit from the dilemma that we don't know a better answer. Of course, today we can rely back on Sir Newton and we have a better idea what's cooking when I drop that apple. But now we have other topics on our table. The creation of the universe. That dark matter thing. Your examples of "divine proof". Do I have a handy explanation for them? Hell no. But "a wizard did it" is a bit cheap.
But, as I said before, in the posting you replied to, it's a handy and convenient explanation. Something that even early human came up with. When something happens and you cannot explain it, inventing a God who can do it always saves the day.