There are none so blind as will not see. This conversation cannot progress until you're able to move past your current cognitive biases and start expanding beyond those parameters. You are wrong -- and, setting aside the original positions of this conversation, you are distinctly factually wrong in your statements here:

Which is what i said.. skipping the "discern a problem part", which is just the motivation for the hypothesis.

Why? Because all of science is founded on the "discern a problem". You say it is "just the motivation for the hypothesis" and in so doing reveal that you have utterly no comprehension of the scientific process. The hypothesis is the result of the motivation, which is to uncover new problems -- those problems being the answers to previous problems, as I described above. The problems are the motivation of science. The theophile, however, first derives the answer -- and then seeks to fit to it. This is God.

There is always an attachment to the outcome.. hence the reason for pursuing the truth in the first place.

Again, you show an utter and irresponsibly absolute lack of comprehension of the scientific process. Methodologies for accounting for cognitive bias now represent a vast bulk of material -- and effort -- on the part of scientists. Just google "cognitive bias" and you will see it.

When i say guidance it was a soft way of meaning his rules.. if you care to look all of his rules are quite straightforward, love thy neighbor as thyself.. i don't see it getting easier than that.. there are only 2 rules for Christians.. love thy god above all else, love their neighbor as they self.. these are the summation of all of God's laws and the litmus test for your actions. In your examples above of "Christians" doing "evil" I would say obviously they are failing this litmus test wouldn't you?

Again you show an apparently willful failure to comprehend what is being said. Your point is irrelevant: you believe those are the rules. That's your opinion of the interpretation of someone else's opinion . Where's the exact Word of God? Where's the 'heavenly guidance'? The Bible? Say it with me now -- I'll say it slowly. //THE// ... Bible ... IS ... N.O.T. ... evidence . "Dot". The bible is an accumulation of the writings of dozens of people over hundreds of years, without even so much as ONE single eye-witness account of any events it purports to describe! Where there are authors who were alive at a given time of the events they record, they disagree . Example: The fig tree's wilting after being cursed by Jesus. Did it happen that very instant, or did it happen during the evening? Second example: the bible states that any man with a beard ought be stoned to death. And that's new Testament. Yet Jesus is depicted as having a beard. Third example: Peter states in his letters that men of faith ought have their penises fully removed. Does that mean any man with a penis can't go to heaven? What rules are we to follow, and which not? Is it a judgment call? Then what use as guidance is that anthology 1,700-4,000 year-old books? You say there are "two rules" -- but those are your selection . Are you God?

This also supposes that doing good for certain reasons (e.g. a promise of eternal life) is inherently "bad", but who determines what is a "bad" reason.. you can throw out the possibility of God because you think you know what is "good" and what is "evil".?!? This touches the Arrogance i spoke of previously.

Again, you are factually erroneous: I, as an atheist, throw out good and evil as concepts in anything other than the fictional senses. Your own bible makes it explicitly clear: doing good works only for the promise of reward is sin. Good works are to be done of their own sake; in all religions which depict the benevolence/malevolence dichotomy, greed is viewed as evil.

Overall i am interested in this one thing (although i love the discussion in total) "how would I preserve proof of God for anyone to Know for 2000+ years? (that's a 2 part question, one.. what proof would be sufficient, how would i preserve that proof for an extended period of time (e.g. 2000 years).

Why do all conversations with theists wind up boiling down to who can repeat themselves the most?
GET HIM ON FILM.
It's not that complicated an idea.

That's a good question, from a Christain point of view it is how God's power is manifested through those who believe in him.

Again, you are simply wrong. From a Christian point of view the reason you believe in Jesus -- specifically Jesus -- is because if you do not, you are doomed to death. If you do, then you are a good person and all you do is good, and you will live forever. That, and only that , is acceptable to the Christian faith as described throughout the bible. Period. This is what makes Christendom intolerable.

I think you mean "says the bible." I am not just saying things on my own, everything i am saying is in the bible.. in this case it says those who do not know God's law will be judged by their conscience (paraphrased). If you are arguing he judges something other than our actions in life i am confused.. can you elaborate?

... Go back and read what I said, in the format I said it. Pay attention. Fundamentalist evangelists read exactly what you've read, and they say I'm fucked -- I'm Satan's eternal servant. Even you just did: I know "God's Law" -- and I've refused it. So, no -- I don't mean "Says the bible" -- I mean exactly what I said: "Says you." And only you.

I'm not sure what you mean.. i don't see where "Christendom" disagree with this.. everything i am saying comes from the writings of the bible.. no particular religion... if "modern Christendom" disagrees it isn't with me...

God demands faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. All faith is blind faith. Period. So, again -- your thinking is, here, muddled.

I could go on, and on -- but until you can gain more accuracy in your ideologies and analysis -- this is pretty much a show-stopper. I invest this much effort on the chance that you will surprise me.