Does a God exist?

[pocaracas]

Can I?
Can I?
Can I?

Can any of the theists here actually demonstrate that a God exists? [1]

Can you concisely, empirically, logically or rationally meet your burden of proof to demonstrate that any God exists? [3]

Please start by defining what you mean by 'God.' [2]

No preaching please!

1) Probably not in a way you will find convincing.

One point for house Griffindor!

2) Defining god at the outset is backwards, but since you asked: 'god' is subsistent-being, i.e. that-which-exists-as-'god' is being whatever-it-is completely by the power of its own act of being: no other act of being is a necessary condition for that-which-exists-as-god to be 

oooOOooo... that was better than my lame attempt.
One point for house Griffindor!

3) Empirical evidence (EE): 

a) Some things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist. (e.g. I exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of human cells also exist simultaneously with 'me', and the 'ordering and configuration' of those cells exist on the condition that a certain amount and quality of cells exist simultaneously with the 'ordering and configuration', and the 'certain amount and quality of those cells' exist on the condition that a certain ordering and configuration of molecules exist simultaneously with the 'amount and quality of those cells', etc.)

Ok... with you so far... but I don't see how this relates to anything...

b) No non-abstract (i.e. non-mathematical) actual infinity of things is known to exist (i.e. All aggregates of 'things' are finite aggregates)

"of things"... right... still with you...

Logical axiom (LA): Non-abstract actual infinities cannot exist

Well.... to call this an axiom seems a bit far fetched... I'd go with "assumption".
You cannot say that something unobserved cannot exist. That's the whole point of there being agnostics.

Logical Demonstration:

Given EE(a) is true, then either:

i) All things exist on the condition that other thing(s) simultaneously exist, or

ii) At least one thing exists without the condition that other thing(s) exist.

If EE(a) is true, then there is no possibility besides (i) and (ii)

But... but... what does it mean "to exist", in this context?
It seems to me that you're trying to mix up two different concepts of "existing".
The empirical existing, that which is bound by the physics of our Universe.
And the meta-existing, that which is not bound by the physics of our Universe.

Your premise EE(a) was implying the empirical kind of existing... You can thus not apply it to the meta-existing.

Most apologetics fail at this kind of level - confusing two concepts under the umbrella of the same word.
It was a nice attempt... but you fail.

Anyway... let's see how it went...

Suppose (i) is true. Then all things are aggregates of an infinity of simultaneously existing things, which are themselves aggregates of an infinity of simultaneously existing things, etc.)

Why an infinity?
The set of all things need not be and infinite set.

However, supposing LA (which is consistent with EE(b)), then (i) cannot be true.

Ah... now it's a supposition... ok.
Yes it's consistent with EE(b)... but I fail to see why (i) cannot be true.
All things are not necessarily an infinite set... didn't I just say this?
Actually, "all things" are very likely not an infinite set.
Ask any astrophysicist and he'll tell you that the Universe seems to be bounded.

Therefore, (ii) must be true: at least one thing exists without the condition that other thing(s) exist.

Well... no. As I hope to have shown, (i) is not necessarily false, so (ii) is not necessarily true.
So, nothing is proven.

Infinity is a strange concept... we humans like to think of it as some "very large" number.... but no.... that's wrong.

What is this thing(s)? The demonstration cannot answer that. Does such a thing(s) exist? Yes, and it exists in the most simple and fundamental way: it just is.

To facilitate the discussion about this thing or things, call it/them whatever you want. I happen to call it/them 'god'

I think you need to discover how not to mix up concepts that share the same word and how to use infinities properly.