Apologies if these points have already been addressed; I came late to the party and haven't yet read all the posts.
So, this is an important point. Do you think there could be any different method for finding out about the world other than in controlled experiments?
Of course. The 'scientific method' is not just controlled experiments. In a nutshell, it is a) making an observation, b) coming up with a hypothesis to explain this observation, and c) testing the hypothesis. Controlled experiments generally take place in the third stage, though sometimes they are used to precipitate a phenomenon for observation.
In any event, when testing a hypothesis, note that it is never proven. It may be falsified, if the observed results of an experiment do not match the outcome that the hypothesis predicts. However, if a hypothesis 'passes' the test (ie, is not falsified), then our confidence in it grows accordingly. Controlled testing is how we (try to) prevent the results from being influenced by factors beyond the scope of the hypothesis.
A theory (in the scientific sense, not layman's sense) is a collection of well-supported hypotheses used to explain a set of phenomena.
Note also that we may use this approach in our day-to-day lives. You can notice things, draw conclusions, and test those conclusions. If you refuse to discard or adjust your conclusions despite evidence they're incorrect, that is 'unscientific' thinking. Put another way, beliefs held in the face of contradictory evidence are irrational beliefs. For example, if you think the cute girl at work who smiles a lot is flirting with you, and you test this belief by asking her out, then it would be irrational to persist in this belief if she tells you to fuck off.
Back on topic, you have made the argument that a hidden god can be internally consistent. In your first post, you use the bible to define faith as 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. You go on to say that faith is a mechanism to 'spiritually strengthen' ourselves (whatever that even means, hence other posters' frustration with you). You also say that if we can see something, we cannot have faith in it. However, you completely failed to address the problem of God appearing to numerous people, according to the bible. Was their faith unnecessary? Your first post claims that we need faith in God, yet those people God appeared to couldn't have faith. This includes every prophet who communicated directly with God, not to mention anyone who saw Jesus perform miracles, including everyone who saw him after the resurrection.
This mess of self-contradiction hardly sounds internally consistent, does it?