We know there's a God because...

This seems a little harsh.Rob had just (rather honestly I thought) admitted that there must have been a period in history when people existed but no religious texts were present.As such he was acknowledging that the premise of the OP was in fact not hypothetical at all but in fact a necessarily true historical fact.I know this is not the place to argue the point so I'll leave it at that come what may. But I did feel the need to make that point.

Is this what counts for refutation?You still have not supplied any reasoned response as to why any design* in nature is the work of an "invisible" designer in the form of a god rather than any other possible form of designer such as an advanced alien civilisation.I don't believe that aliens are responsible for the world either but that does not mean I have refuted the possibility.
It just means I have stated my disbelief.To refute the posibility you need to provide a reasoned argument not describe your hysterical reaction to the idea.* Lets assume for the sake of this argument that there is design in nature

There must have been an extended period where no religious texts existed but humans did.Take however long ago it is you think humans first appeared and subtract the time that it is approximated that the first religious texts appeared and we should have some indication of how long humans existed without the presence of any religious texts at all. Why not supply a ready made "word of God" text from the beginning?
This would be a lot simpler and a lot more consistent with the teachings of Christianity (belssed are those who..... etc. etc.) If in this absence of texts God felt the need to demonstrate his existence more "directly" why now, with multiple conflicting and erroneaous texts in existence and more poeple than ever before concluding that without "direct" evidence there can be no God, does he not feel the need for "directness"?1)The inexplicable lack of an initial, original and definitive text
2)The initial need for "directness" in human affairs by God due to the lack of aforementioned definitive text
3)The current existence of multiple fallible human written conflicting texts each with their own followers
4)The "Blessed are those who believe but but do not see" proclamation of ChristianityAre all these not very contradictory?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Indeed it is.To which your only direct answer so far has been to suggest that in the absence of texts it would be necessary for God to - It seems that in the absence of religious texts even God considers there to be insufficient evidence for his own existence available to us without direct personal revelation.So much for the apparent design in nature = evidence for design argument. God himself is against you on that one.Who would have thought it? God is anti IDist!!!!!!!

Indeed we would.The point is that by your own reasoning God considered personal revelation necessary because in the absence of texts there was insufficient other evidence by which to conclude his existence. It seems that your answer (and God’s) is that it is not possible from the natural world alone.

So, to get back to the OP, how do you propose that this be done without the aid of any religious texts?Direct revelation alone seems to be the only answer according to you . Thus those who wrote the bible must have either had direct interraction with God or else made large parts of it up.I know which of the options I think more likely.

An interesting if mildly bonkers hypothesis that is, in principle at least, verifiable by material conventional scientific methodologies.

I wonder if in a few hundred years time scientology will still be around.
I wonder if it will be up there with, or even have surpassed, Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.
Is there a holy book of Scientology? If not is it only a metter of time.....? Do all religions ultimately need a holy book if they are to survive and thrive in the longer term?

Any hypothesis that can be empiricaly tested by means of prediction and verification is potentially scientific at least in principle.If an alien civilisation formed life on Earth then somewhere in the universe it is at least possible that there is empirical evidence of this.
If this alien civilisation designed life and then 'seeded' it here on Earth and elsewhere as the paper you cite is suggesting then logically we can predict that there is life elsewhere in the universe that is derived from the same basic building blocks and design mechanisms as life on Earth.This would be a prediction borne of the logical consequences of the hypothesis in question. This is, in principle, empirically verifiable.If we were to find evidence of an advanced alien civilisation that existed billions of years ago and life in other parts of the universe that was based on the same DNA basis as life as we know it -
THEN there would be scientific evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
NOT conclusive verification necessarily but evidence all the same.Rob - It is all about deriving the logical consequences of a theory, making preedictions and then verifying or refuting them empirically. This is how science works.The alien design hypothesis is at least potentially scientfic in principle (I didn't say it was likley or even possible in practise)An omnipotent omniscient supernatural God that abracadras things into and out of existence is empirically untestable and as such can never be a scientific explanation for anything.(AbE) In the world of science theories that have not been empirically tested are merely hypotheses. Theories that cannot be empirically tested even in principle can never be more than unreliable assumptions that more often than not are derived from desire driven interpretation of evidence. I am afraid that ID of the sort you advocate falls very squarely into this latter category.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.