"We will continued to be enlightened. I see good things for our future. Unfortunately, this god is not growing with the enlightenment. He still has unenlightened standards that reflect the standards of the people that created him. That's the point. For this god to be real, surely he would be progressive and find ways to make a more enlightened people aware of his existence. That goes for all the gods, who amazingly resemble the cultures that worship them."
Of course, this would make sense if the missing words were included. This, "this god is not growing with enlightenment" should read "some people's ideas of this god are not growing with enlightenment".
Strctured as the original sentence is, it is nonsense. What is a god...whether you believe in one or not? Surely, to be a god, the divine being would necessarily be something other than human? So, even for one who does not believe in a god, the hypothetical being under discussion must actually be a god, real or not, and so could scarcely "grow" with the enlightenment of ordinary people.
So, what you really mean here, is that, (in your opinion) people's concept of their god has not grown.
That would be a sentence that made sense, and an idea that could be discussed. As it stands, though, the sentence is utterly nonsensical, and can't provide any basis for discussion. The same applies to the rest of that post.
Designs, yes, the advance of astronomy has certainly increased our understanding massively. At the forefront of astronomical observation and research has been the Vatican Observatory, thus demonstrating that there is no conflict between science and religion, even though some ex-Jehovah's Witnesses find it very hard to shake off the mental shackles by which the Watchtower kept them in thrall, and can't get their heads around the happy interaction between those two disciplines.