It is more probable than it is improbable that a monotheistic and at least Deistic God exist.

Okay, so very few Physicists would agree in the belief of a computer simulated universe. Also If the aliens were the "God" than they are supernatural because they transcend OUR naturality. Also, Advanced Technology would distinguishable from Magic because technology is programmed with non-natural substances, while Magic at least what one would call magic comes from either nature or non-programmed supernatural substances. Also on whether you are implying that a universal creator is a "special computer" here is a video for that. Basically for you to disprove God you have to make a true statement that it is more improbable than it is probable that a Timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful etc being does not exist. I have a video for you to watch on whether miracles are impossible or not I will save myself typing space and give you a video that will address your infinite regressions argument On your Mutually Incompatible argument My rebuttal is accredited to Ed Dingess. "Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can"t change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent." "Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion In order to evaluate the validity of Dawkins" argument, let"s put it in the form of a syllogism. If God is omniscient, He knows everything that will happen If God is omnipotent, he has the power to change the course of history God"s omniscience means He cannot change the course of history if He already knows that history Therefore, omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible In order for an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow deductively from the premises. In this case, Dawkins would appear to have a valid argument. However, just because an argument is valid, that does not mean its conclusion is true. It simply means the argument has good form. What has to hold in order for an argument to be valid and have a true conclusion is that the premises must be true and the conclusion must deductively follow from those premises. Here is an example of a valid argument with a false conclusion: All humans have two eyes Bill only has one eye Therefore Bill is not human The form of this argument is good. The conclusion logically follows from the premises. However, we know that the conclusion is false. Why? What is wrong with this argument? The problem is located in the first premise. It is not true that all humans have two eyes. Some humans lose an eye while others may be born with only one eye. This fact does not make one non-human. Here is an example of an invalid argument with a false conclusion: All humans have two eyes Bill has two legs Therefore Bill is not human This argument has a problem in that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Here is an example of an invalid argument with a true conclusion: All humans have brains Bill has two eyes Therefore Bill is a human Now, let"s return to Dawkins argument to see if his conclusion is true or false. Does God know all that will happen? Yes He does. This is attested time and again in Scripture. There is nothing hidden from God. Dawkins" first premise is true. What can we say about the second premise? Can God change the course of history? At first glance, we may be tempted to answer in the affirmative. But before we do, we must first examine what we mean by history. We understand history to mean all phenomenon throughout the course of human existence from the beginning to the end. Can God change the course or path of human history? If it is true that nothing happens that God did not decree, and it is true that God is unchanging, then it follows that God cannot change the course of human history because unless God had decreed it, it would not exist in the first place. All of human history is the result of the decretive act of God God"s decretive acts cannot undergo change Therefore, God cannot change the course of human history This argument is not only valid, its conclusion happens to be true as well. In fact, the conclusion is necessarily true because 1) it follows from the premises, and 2) both premises are true. When the conclusion of an argument deductively follows from true premises, that conclusion is necessarily true. Dawkins makes a category error in how he understands omniscience and human history. In addition, omnipotence does not mean God can do anything. For example, God cannot lie. God cannot sin. God cannot tempt others to sin. God cannot stop being God. Omnipotence means that God is powerful enough to do whatever God is pleased to do. "All-powerful" means there is nothing God cannot do if He indeed wants to do it. The reason God cannot do certain things is that God cannot do anything with which He is not pleased. In other words, God cannot act in a way that is contrary to His holy nature. It would be a violation of God"s nature for God to decree one thing and then do another. Therefore, God cannot change the course of human history because He has previously decreed that such a course be actualized before time began. The truth is that if God were not omnipotent, He would not be able to guarantee that what He decrees will actualize because something could take place beyond his power or ability to bring it to pass. Moreover, if God were not omniscient, He would not know what to decree, let alone how to bring it to pass. One would expect a man like Richard Dawkins to be able to construct better arguments. It is at times shocking to observe how sinful men employ the use of logic and reason in such unethical manners in order to suppress the knowledge of God in nature, and in human conscience. Let just say that evolution does not disprove God in fact in my opinion it only plays in favour of God at least the one we are debating. For more info please check out the works of Robert Nisbet, Anjeanette Roberts, Katie Galloway, Russ Carlson, Patricia Babin all who are Christians and are biologists. Please watch these videos I look forward to your rebuttal.