There is a God.

I look forward to some intense discussion. As stated in the introduction, there will be no rebuttals this round, so I will not refute those points unless you bring them up again later. However, as you have asked a question, I feel obliged to answer. Which god? Using pure logic, there is only a single God. It is not possible for multiple gods to all exist at the same time. God is commonly attributed with multiple characteristics such as omnipotency, omniescence, and omnipresence, some of which I shall explore later in my argument. Let's examine the characteristic of being all powerful- begin with the assumption that there are, in fact, multiple gods. Let's say there are two gods. If both are indeed gods, then both must be all powerful. However, what we have is a contradiction- if there is one god who is all powerful, then the other mustn't have power over the first (and visa versa). But we know that gods are all powerful, as that is one of their defining characteristics. Therefore, there can only be one God. Another way of viewing this is that God is defined as outside all; if there was a second god, how could the first be outside all, and the second outside all at the same time? One of them would have to be outside the other, and so only one would be God. If you're question is referring to which God in the sense of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc. then please observe one of my initial premises- we are not debating whose religion has the correct view of God. We are simply exploring the possibility of God's existence. With that clarified, I now move onto my first demonstration of God's existence. Imagine you enter a really, really high quality, internationally-renowned restaurant. You walk into that restaurant, sit down, and try to decide on which bottle of wine you would most like to drink. You cannot choose- this restaurant has all the best types of wine! The waiter comes over, and asks what you would like to drink. Still undecided, you tell him to surprise you. The waiter brings over the first bottle and pours you a glass. Raising it to your lips, you taste the delicious drink all through your mouth and swallow admiringly. This is some good wine! Before long you have finished that bottle, so your waiter brings another, different bottle to you. It's even better than the first! and so you order a third, which is even better, and so on. .. (I am assuming that I cannot get drunk). Here is what has happened: Each time you get a new bottle, you are able to detect that it has a nicer taste than the previous one. But how can that be so? Tracing the history of all wines you have ever tasted, you will come back to your first. Now, if we were able to appreciate the second bottle because it was better than the first, and appreciate the third because it was better than the second, by what standard can we appreciate the very first bottle of wine? There was none before it to compare with, so by what standard can we measure it's taste? To use more appropriate examples than wine, we can look at beauty. The first time you open your eyes as a child, you might see your mother looking down at you, and appreciate how beautiful she is. As you progress through life, you see more and more beautiful women, each measured from the previous standard of beauty. But by what standard did we measure the first, our mother? What we observe here is that there must be some form of infinite beauty, goodness, all pleasant traits, by which we have a standard. It is this standard that we can call God. You see, one fundamental flaw with the common thought of there being no God is that, if we can't observe him, there is no evidence, and thus, no God. However, this is not evidence for no God. God is unlimited, and so is outside of our physical reality- we can never produce tangible proof for his existence because He is not tangible. This doesn't mean we can't observe Him, however, because we can observe his effect on the world (for example, the ability to perceive beauty). If you believe that this is not proper proof, let me point out that science uses this very same principle to prove existence. I am talking about the neutrino particle. The neutrino particle is invisible, has no rest mass, and unobservable by any scientific tool we own. It's kind of like God in that respect, except that it is physical. Most people, myself included, when first told about the neutrino and its properties would say that 'Well! If you can't observe it, then how do you know it's there? Sure, it would explain some particular phenomenon, but that's not a proof! You have no evidence, therefore I can conclude that it does not exist. ' In much the same way people say about God 'Well! If you can't observe Him scientifically, physically, then how do you know He's there? Sure, it would explain some particular phenomenon, like miracles, or creation, or standards of beauty, but that's not a proof! You have no evidence, therefore I can conclude that He does not exist. ' But the problem with this, in both cases, is that our evidence is indirect, not direct. We know the neutrino exists because we can indirectly observe its effects; we can see it colliding with other particles that are detectable and, thus, recognise the presence of a neutrino. Likewise, we can indirectly observe God through his effect; we can trace standards of beauty, or goodness, or other, to show that we end up at some perfect degree of beauty, or goodness, or other, which we can call God. That I lay as my first proof of God's existence. I look forward to your reply, and while I agree you do not have burden of proof I still encourage you to put forth arguments of your own. Sources: Mostly I am using my own logic. The general idea was borrowed from St. Thomas Aquinas. The neutrino comparison was purely my idea. - St. Thomas Aquinas, 'Summa Theologica'.