The God of the bible is the big-dude in the sky. End-o-story.
Er, no. The God of the Old Testament is presented as such, but not all theologians take the Bible literally.
Again, we must point you not to the vanishingly small minority of people who are religious philosophers, but to the overwhelming majority of people who are not. They may not have a clear conception of god as "dude in sky with beard", but there's not much difference between that and what they do believe. Theirs is an interventionist god who manipulates events and people to his own ends and, for many of them, is an angry god who is quite full of hate for a large number of people.
Who says that god is necessarily interventionist?
Most believers. Virtually all of them. Basically, anyone who believes in God and calls him such. The interventions are called "miracles" and are believed to happen on a daily, nay, hourly basis.
Also, typically the idea of god happens to be an idea of omnipotence. If that really is the case, then god could do whatever he pleases in any manner he pleases. Why attach human reasoning and logic to something that is inherently separated from human reasoning and logic? If anything, that's illogical.
So... "because". "Because" has become the ultimate in refutation. Why? Because.
As Superman has become overpowered and omnipotent over the years, most people have realized that it's led to absurdity and poor writing. But when you change "superman" to "god", all of a sudden it's no longer absurd, it's "faith".
Science has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of god. It has offered no evidence of his existence or non-existence. To say that someone is illogical or irrational for believing in a higher power/being/god is just wrong.
Why? Why can science say nothing about the existence or non-existence of a thing? Religion posits that there exists an incredibly large, potent, weighty phenomenon that changes the world around us. Science is all about the observation of things and events. The larger and more powerful the thing or event, the easier it is to observe. Far from being impossible to see, an all-powerful, all-manipulative god should be the easiest thing ever to spot.
And yet, no one has. The best anyone comes up with is a feeling. That ain't evidence. And, yes, lack of evidence for something for which there should be overwhelming evidence, is evidence of the absence of the thing.
And believing in something in spite of evidence against it is irrational.
There are thousands of things science cannot explain, constant reports of unexplained phenomena, events occurring that were so unlikely that people didn't even acknowledge the possibility of them even happening.
Stuff and nonsense. There are thousands of things which science either has not yet fully explained (gravity) or which science
has explained, but which the faithful choose to ignore (alien kidnappings, spontaneous combustion, mythical ape-men).
The whole bible was written about proofs of God.
Are these proofs fictional, the events co-incidences, and the phenomena imagined? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some choose not to believe that just because modern science can't explain it, it can't have ever happened, and instead take these things as proof of God.
You cannot possibly attempt to examine the possibility of God if you do not even attempt to accept the opposing sides arguments, and just dismiss anything that contradicts your beliefs as 'untrue'.
The bible isn't about proofs of god. It's a collection of, in the case of the old testament, the myths and
causi belli of bronze age shepherds. In the case of the new testament it's the myths and
causi belli of medieval farmers. It's no more a proof of anything than when a child believes there are ghosts in the attic. It's a faulty explanation of something the expositor was ill-equipped to comprehend.
I'm not dismissing what contradicts my beliefs. I'm dismissing what contradicts evidence. I dismiss god as firmly as I dismiss ghosts, fairies, spontaneous combustion, and alien abductions. The evidence is overwhelmingly against them and belief in them is, at best, delusional.