There is a God.

You stated "It is not possible for multiple gods to all exist at the same time. 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)." Your contradiction applies to the single god too. If we agree he is all-powerful (omnipotent) then we agree he has every power. One of those powers, since we agree he has EVERY power, could be the power to destroy himself. You need to research the omnipotence paradox, but let me give a real world example: Does god have the power to create a rock so heavy that he could not move it? If the answer is yes, he submits himself to the rock's immense mass leaving him not omnipotent. If the answer is no then that's a power he does not have leaving him not omnipotent. Omnipotence by definition cannot be. It contradicts itself. You also said "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." Unfortunately when we explore possibilities of something, we need to have a running idea of what that something is, and with this topic there are so many proposed gods that are mutually exclusive, asking which god is relevant, but I will submit to your rules and debate a supernatural, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, deity. You then state "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?" Are these wines made of something that I have not come in contact with before? You're saying if I've never had wine before, then I can't judge the wine because there is no previous experience with wine. But I have experience with drinks, fermented juices of fruits, alcohol, grapes, and flavors in general. I can judge flavors regardless of the product, because my judgment of flavors does not require one product, it requires my sense of taste. So I've never eaten poop before, but the ingredients in poop I have experienced like digested food, dead blood cells, and bile. There is no standard, there is my sensory abilities that leave a pleasant taste or not. You then said "To use more appropriate examples than wine, we can look at beauty. 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." First off, beauty is somewhat universal to humans, namely because of our desire for patterns and symmetry. Symmetrical faces tend to be regarded as attractive across cultures. Symmetry, is a mathematical principle and requires no standard of beauty because something is either symmetrical or it isn't. Secondly, you make a bald claim that the standard of beauty must be infinitely beautiful. Why does a standard need to be infinite in any way? In your example of wine, the first glass was your standard, which is fine, but this first glass was not infinitely good/all pleasant. You have contradicted yourself. Infinity and all pleasantness do not a standard make. You also said "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." I agree. Just because you can't observe it, doesn't mean it's not there and I hate when atheists make that claim...it's wrong. But I will describe my position for why the evidence isn't there. My claim is that anything that exists has been or can be 1. demonstrated 2. replicated 3. used to make accurate predictions about the nature of the thing being demonstrated. For me, #1 has not been done for any supernatural ANYTHING, and without #1 you can't replicate the demonstration to make accurate predictions. If you can show all 3, you win the argument. You also said "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)." Flawed. If you can observe his effect on the world, then he is detectable. Effect means a result in reality. It's like air. We can't observe air, but we can DEMONSTRATE its effects, REPLICATE this demonstration of air's effects, and use what we've learned about air from the demonstrations and replications to make ACCURATE PREDICTIONS about the nature and behavior of air. This hasn't been done with the unobserved god. You can't demonstrate his effects to even get close to proving his existence. Also what does unlimited mean? As far as I understand it, thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, nothing can be unlimited because of the tendency for things that exist to decay and lose the order of their particles. But of course you will commit the fallacy of special pleading and claim that god does not follow this law. I would then ask you, what evidence do you have that things that don't follow the laws of thermodynamics exist? You need to demonstrate how god or how anything can be unlimited or infinite before just saying god is unlimited/infinite. You then state "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." In science if you can isolate a cause for something and without this cause you cannot replicate your effects, then you have found something that exists. Neutrinos are just subatomic particles that have a neutral electric charge. Though it's invisible, there is no rest mass, and undetectable by our tools, its effects are measurable in atomic behavior. We also can measure electric charge and isolate the cause for this measurement. The cause that has been isolated is a neutrino. A neutrino is not like god, because god has no reference point, like an electric charge for the neutrino. So if you can demonstrate some isolated measurable effect--not measurement of god himself--of god then you finally have something. This has yet to be done. Also you said "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." Your proof for god, if I understand it correctly, is "standards of beauty/goodness" and "a perfect degree of beauty/goodness". Perfection does not equal standards. You don't need a perfect degree of something to know how to judge something. You need your faculties and perceptions to make judgments. You just take this flawed understanding of standards/perfection and then call it god with no explanation of why it is god other than "I called it perfection, therefore it's god." My argument: Claims for god are simply appeals. They require bald claims like "standards need to be perfect/infinite/god-like" or else we have no reference point for judgment, therefore god exists. If god exists then demonstrating him by way of effects or logic should be much easier. Take anything that you understand to exist that any reasonable person would agree with you on. How about the claim that there are microorganisms. Can you demonstrate them (effects or logic or contingency on reality)? Can you replicate this demonstration? Can you use this demonstration and subsequent replication to make accurate predictions about the nature and behavior of microorganisms? Do this with god, and you have proof.