Does the God exists - Part 2 Comments Consolidation

I would be dishonest, if I say I was not expecting reactions on the blog. But right now I am not trying to create any opinion over the blog as I am just putting an edited version of a message board discussion. So, I decided to move in this unplanned post ahead of the planned posts so as to merge the comments to the main discussion.
Gaurav suggests that my suggestion of the existence of God to reason out things we can't reason out does not stand merit. The theory of God is there to make a person feel that there is someone above all of us. Otherwise, we will start believing that we are the supreme force and our thoughts and decisions becomes monotonous and rigid. The though of God make us think about somebody whom we can look upon for the solution when we are in doubt.
Gaurav, I beg to differ a bit on the thought you presented. Point one is we should never ever devise a theory to limit the thought process. This theory seem to be originated with negative thought. It is pointless to think that we need somebody to master us. We do not seem to be believing that we are capable enough to just live our lives as per your theory, and I find it hard to digest.
Deepak has very different opinion than whatever has been presented so far. according to him the existence of God is just another state of mind, wherein human being try to find mental asylum in handing difficult conditions. According to him the thought is more driven by our upbringing rather than a logic structure and I agree on the this with him. We are fed with the theory in such a way that we feel that its a sin to even question the theory, that essentially drives us to a saturation level on the theory wherein we stop thinking on the matters which we should just believing that its a Godly issue. What I find surprising is that we try to justify a literature that was written thousands of years ago as a standard way of life, when the context of the life was drastically different from what it is right now.
The theory regarding to the God being creator-destroyer can always be questioned for the obvious reasons as it has too much loopholes. These arguments are more obvious than the arguments against the theory of evolution.
When we reason that we find solace in the lap of the theory of the existence of God, then I always feel we are restricting our ability to reason the things logically, scientifically. Because even right now we have large number of natural phenomenons that are yet to be explored, and human mind need a significant amount of time to observe and analyze, so I have always been keen on opposing the restrictive theories like Deepak.
Deepak has quoted Buddha to support his arguments, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
Since I am in sync with his thoughts I have inserted my comments inline. Apology to Deepak, if this seem to be an idea to sabotage the copyright of his thoughts.
My dear fellow Shajee supported the believers theory. According to him theoretically every high level creations with intelligence after a certain time discards it's own creator like the sci-fi movies predicting our fate at the hands of machines, which are ironically our own creation.
He explains my doubts on the existence of God simultaneously with evil, by suggesting the Barber story on God's existence at http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/archive/index.php/t-152544.html.
On human being puppet he suggests that we can justify the counterargument as well.
Finally, he suggests that it is indeed tricky and difficult to believe in God as we always can justify our beliefs with arguments and counterarguments depending on the situation.
He also supported his argument with an anonymous quote, "As you sow, so shall you Reap.
There's but Heaven and there's Hell, wait till you die and you shall see."
And he has the belief that everybody do get a moment in life when he can feel God's presence.
Shajee Bhai, on your theory creation having the capability to discard its creator, I support the theory on the basis of Charles Darwin's theory that if creator is not good enough to survive let it be extinct as only fittest wil survive as per natural process. On barber story, I feel you did not read the comments from minority commenter. So, I find this argument as opportunist rather than generic.
Lastly on existence of Heaven and Hell or life after death, should a human being should do good only for the sake of deciding his fate after death? I have a different and successful perspective to try. For once try to do a good thing just to satisfy yourself and not to show to anybody or for the sake of God. That one piece of good thing would give you happiness for your life atleast (I am not sure about things post this life)
Deepak also have thoughts on comment from Shajee resisting comparison of spirituality with sci-fi theory as apples to oranges comparison. He also defines the ultimate truth as facts present inside our mind. He terms the prayer to be a tool to do things human can't do.
He believes nature to be the ultimate super power and nature cannot be amended; it has to be accepted. There is no way otherwise.
I agree with Deepak on his thoughts apart from his terming 2 theories to be apples and oranges. In my opinion when we think spiritually the core though is alway driven by environment we live in. So, we can always take in account anything materialistic evidence to give shape to our theory. Opposing any thought process, in my view is, unnatural.
Finally I had a verbal comment from one of my colleagues, who said that he does not agree with my posts. I think he is not the only one, billions of people do not agree with my thoughts. The natural reason for that is that they have thier own opinion. I never have any issue with people having different opinion, since this gives humanity a great value add.