God and religion

From my personal experiences I don't understand the concept of god. While I personally believe there could be the existence of a higher dimensional being which to us would be a god - for example imagine how a 3 dimensional being would seem to a 2 dimensional being, it would have knowledge of all due to being able to traverse more spatial dimensions - and potentially a being which can traverse time as a spatial dimension or some other method (I know this sounds like science fiction) however I cannot understand people relating this to specific religion. Which leads me to my distrust of organised religion. I cannot see the rational for the following of seemingly arbitrary rituals. Another reason for my distrust of group following of religion is the obvious ways it can be abused "in the name of god" having a centralised person who has influence over the religion or a specific gathering of individuals does not seem correct to me.

Now for a thought experiment imagine the existence of an omnipotent god perfectly just, all knowing and all powerful however allows human free will. Now a person decides to not attend religious meetings and instead chooses to meditate on their own. If this individual experiences enlightenment about god which does not align with the group meetings of the religion are they wrong? We have already established that this god is all powerful so why would they reveal falsehoods as we are assuming they are perfectly just. This leads me to conclude that an individuals relationship with god is just that, individual and should not be influenced by group. Which brings me to the conclusion that god should be pursued by long periods of meditation and thinking and group gatherings and religious leaders are not the path to this enlightenment.

Question: Would a god not ensure group meetings of only reveal the truth

My response: No as given that the god allows human free will it allows for individuals with malicious intentions to poison the religion and add their own malicious ideas and policies into the collective. This is addressed by exclusively studying religion individually as it removes the possibility for external poisoning of your ideas of god.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this and any errors in my thinking or factors I have not considered. These ideas are still in their infancy so feedback is encouraged.

Thoughts about thought

In a recent debate with a friend the discussion about the origin and nature of thoughts came up. The following is my recollection of this discussion.

Can humans have unique thoughts? How do we distinguish between an original thought and a "composite" or inspired thought? Both of these questions seem very existential and as such reasonably difficult to answer and as such I will instead take a propositional logic approach. Assume that it is not possible for a thought to be entirely novel. By this logic every thought must have a "parent" or "parents" now consider we take this to its logical extreme we are clearly left with the "original" thought. But what might this thought be? I propose that conciousness is a worthy candidate for this. Before going further into how conciousness fits this description I must acknowledge some potential holes in this model. Firstly thoughts are not cleanly communicated like this, thoughts are contained within humans who take stimuli in the form of senses and since not all of the natural world is man made this could potentially be a source for "derived thoughts without origin" thoughts inspired by nature. In all honesty this is a good model.