There is a God.

You said "Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything, it is the ability to do anything THAT ONE SETS OUT TO DO. " Bogus. Omni means every, potent means power. Omnipotent means all powerful devoid of volition (something one sets out to do). You can't just smuggle in your own definition by adding things like that. Then you said "See, you have begged the question by making that assumption." Ok do you agree that begging the question is circular reasoning? That's what omnipotence is. You see, the idea itself begs the question, not my rejection of it. God is omnipotent because he can do everything...Also you brought up the idea of god trying to not exist. That demonstrates why omnipotence is by definition impossible. He would have to be able to do such a thing and can't. You also said "What I am trying to point out is that the first interaction with beauty also involves a judgment, and so it must be based on something. Taking this idea to infinity, we reach something of infinite goodness, and we call that God.' Why do you feel the need to take ideas to infinity? Also even our initial judgments of beauty are based on our perceptions and senses. So we don't need a previous anything to pass judgment on something, we need the ability to judge, which comes from human senses and perceptions not infinite goodness. Then you said "You also claim that beauty is based upon our love of symmetry, derived from mathematics. I wish to point out that mathematics is a HUMAN CONSTRUCT." You do realize that even if we never placed values or concepts on ideas like symmetry, symmetry would still exist. Also you said "All laws we have, all evidence of formulae or symmetry that we discover in nature, is based upon something that we have manifested. We can construct laws that define natural functions as linear relationships, or discover the Fibonacci sequence in the leaves of plants. But in the end, we created the mathematics used to discover these things. We use a base-10 system for out mathematics, and from here all our laws and discoveries use base 10. But if we had chosen base-9 or base-13 originally, then we would have different laws and mathematical discoveries in nature." If we chose different base numbers, the laws themselves would not change just the units we use to explain them would. The laws of mathematics, including symmetry, exist without our understanding or representations of them. You said as well "Mathematics is a human construct, as is symmetry. And yet a new born child is able to appreciate the beauty of his mother without exposure to mathematics. How can we explain that without my argument of degrees of beauty?" Symmetry and mathematics exist despite anyone's exposure to it. The constructs are how we understand these facts of nature, but if we didn't understand these facts they would still be facts. So the baby who was never exposed to math still sees a symmetrical face even though he doesn't know what symmetry is. Proportions are detectable by the human eye without formal math instruction. You further claim "And yet science's substitute God, Evolution, does not fit this model. It has been demonstrated, yes, but can we REPLICATE IT? No we can't and are yet to do so." Wrong. Evolution is being replicated over and over again every day many of times per day thanks to the short lives of certain insects and bacteria that make it easy for speciation, natural selection, and general evolution to be replicated in labs. Then you said "Evolution is a probability game, and so no predictions based on evolution and observation can ever be accurate. If you ask me, scientists and atheists put as much faith in the existence of evolution as theists put in the existence of God. Neither of us, by your definition of proof, can really PROVE OUR BELIEFS, so what makes yours any more legitimate than ours?" Prior to 2009, biologists had to explain why apes have 48 chromosomes and humans, modern apes, only have 46. Biologists used the framework of evolution, which had been demonstrated and replicated, to make the prediction that it was likely that ancestral ape chromosomes fused together thus humans lost two chromosomes. In 2009 after mapping of the human genome, we discovered that human chromosome #2 is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes demonstrated by the exact same base pairs appearing on the telomeres and centromeres of the fusion site of human's 2nd chromosome. It's not faith to believe in evolution when you can demonstrate it, replicate it, and use it to make accurate predictions. What makes my position more legitimate is it requires no faith, and not believing in it has no affect on whether or not it's true. Then you said "A characteristic of God is that he is infinite and unlimited- its part of His nature. Following from that, we see that He cannot be limited to the laws of thermodynamics, as that would contradict his unlimited nature." Since when did "it's part of his nature" serve as an explanation for how you know this to be true. Seriously, how do you know that the nature of god is that he is infinite and unlimited? I'm saying we have no reason to believe that god can violate the laws of thermodynamics because "it's part of his nature" doesn't have ANY explanatory power. You further claim "And note that my burden of proof is not to prove that God is unlimited, but to prove He exists. It follows that if He exists, as I am demonstrating, then He must be unlimited." If you're demonstrating that he must be unlimited then simply demonstrating his existence would not lead you to that conclusion. Therefore your argument REQUIRES a demonstration of god's unlimitedness, or you can only conclude his existence. You also say "God cannot be compared with microorganisms. He is not physical, and thus cannot be proven by any physical method, such as the scientific method you are arguing with. " If god exists how do you know god is not physical? Please demonstrate this. Also I argue that any proof requires a physical or contingent on physical reality method. That any type of proof ever has been done physically or contingent on physical reality, and we use this proof as our detection for things that exist in reality. With your alien example, assuming the alien has never experienced pain or suffering in the way that we have then no, the alien would not realize the acts were wrong. You then say "The generally believed opinion in the scientific community is that most of our actions, thoughts, moral ideal, etc., are governed and decided by evolutionary instinct. People believe that through evolution we have learned of survival, relationships, the importance of mating for the continued survival of our bloodline, etc. People tend to reduce most of what makes us human down to simply animal instinct." I mean yeah the evolutionary instinct makes sense, but the logical idea that we can accomplish more survival and less suffering if we work together peacefully is obvious and explains why you see similar morals throughout cultures without "external forces". You finish by saying "And yet, if we accept the evolutionary stance, one would think that murder could be justified. If you believe in evolutionary instinct, and in relative truth, then it follows that you must believe that murder is morally alright if it serves an evolutionary purpose (like gaining you a higher level of power in a corporal business, for example) and that, relative to your own desires and, thus, evolutionary needs, it is perfectly fine to kill the guy above you on the corporal chain." If you consider necessary self defense that kills someone a form of murder then murder could be justified. Anyway, evolutionary instinct wants me to poop and pee whenever my body needs it wherever I am, have sex with as many women as I possibly can, even if undesired, to procreate as much as possible, and eat as much food as possible so that I don't starve when there's a food shortage. I do not believe that pooping and peeing everywhere is moral, nor do I find sex with non-desiring woman moral, nor do I find engorging myself beyond its limits moral. So even though it's true in nature, doesn't mean it's automatically moral in society. Also killing the guy above me on the corporal chain would be counter to evolution because it would not propagate the species it would help limit it. Being moral is an obvious conclusion when you can hunt more animals with the help of a healthy group of your species, build structures and make products in little time because of a concerted effort by the many members of your group, and protect your group because of the friendly, moral, not dead people who agree to protect your group's peace. If we tortured, killed, robbed, and mistreated our fellow humans, our group success could not be possible. This is where the morals are coming from. We observe our experiences, we balance the consequences and we decide what will lead us to a prosperous conclusion and what will not. Moral and immoral. Omnipotence has nothing to do with what the agent sets out to do or doesn't. Omni means every and Potent means power not "power something sets out to do" Our understanding of mathematics is not needed for the beauty of symmetry. Symmetry exists and can be detected whether the baby knows what symmetry is or not. God has yet to be demonstrated, and evolution has been demonstrated. Morals are not just evolutionary instinct, they're obvious conclusions about which behaviors (moral/immoral) lead to humans' successes. What evidence do you have for the existence of your god other than you think he's infinite, you claim he's the standard for beauty, and you baldly assert that he's where we get our morals from?