@Frank Apisa,
Pardon me if I entered this sub-thread late and missed essential points from earlier comments.
Before one can discuss the possibility of "the existence of God" isn't it essential to define "God"?
I assume the term refers to something more than a creator per se. If the universe were the abortive creation of an immature cosmic artist a la Heinlein's "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag", or a lab experiment by a science-fiction alien, I don't see what the term "God" adds that distinguishes it from the role of mere creator.
Nor do I see the transcendence of "natural law" (i.e. supernaturalism) to be distinguishing, since in both of the above cases "natural law" is merely the subset of conditions determined in a particular universe by an entity acting within a much broader framework. "Supernatural" would then be a relative term.
If by supernatural it is meant phenomena which cannot be explained by science in its present form, that isn't saying much: it wasn't so long ago, after all, that something as mundane as television was inexplicable by then extant science.
How does one distinguish, in a categorical sense, between natural and supernatural phenomena, without an exhaustive and final understanding of all phenomena, both actual and hypothetical? Does anyone claim such knowledge, and is it epistemologically reasonable to assume that comprehensive knowledge is attainable in an absolute sense? If anything actually observed is reclassified as natural no matter how unusual, how can anything be supernatural? On the other hand, if what is commonly referred to as the natural order is simply a misunderstanding or delusion, perhaps everything is "supernatural".
What I'm trying to get at is what distinguishes the term "God" from subsidiary roles (e.g. creator) that could serve without superfluous cultural baggage if that was all that was meant.
Similarly, if relative powerfulness and capability was the criterion, surely a man would be a god relative to an ant or an amoeba. But then, why employ a term like god instead of something more mundane and sensibly desciptive?
The central aspect of culturally existing deity is that it seeks worship, or demands it, or accepts it. This strikes me as megalomaniacal. A parent is a creator, and may require some degree of obedience, but doesn't ask to be worshipped. A mentor may appreciate respect but also doesn't ask for worship. The attribute to me seems unpleasantly primitive. Why should a superior being demand worship? If a human scientist created some sort of minor beings to boss them around and demand veneration as a god, he would be deranged.
