[Serious] If I met Him...

[R00tKiT]

Well, that's the thing. I AM speaking to members of the forum here. Much more than God ever has.

You're not, you're writing to them and they write back. Clearly this was enough for you to conclude they are human beings. Strictly speaking, the latter conclusion is illogical, but we have very good reasons to support it rather than overthink about such a trivial matter.
The gist of it is that that there is no proof for anything -aside from the deductions we do in math classrooms-. We only have good reasons and plausible analogies to say there are other minds than ourselves', an external world, etc.

Even then though, I am trying to think of something they could do to prove Godhood. Possibly bringing something into or out of existence. But then there's the whole, elevated technology thing. If they could physically talk to me, it would always be in the back of my mind that they are on the same plane as me, and thus anything they did, I'd wonder if it weren't technology that I don't have access to, or a simulation(wherein God is actually just another operator in this simulation like myself but with admin access) or hypnosis, or weather changes I don't understand, etc.

The hypothesis of an extremely advanced technology doesn't solve the problem of infinite regress. If it has the properties of a deity, then you can just substiute the term "advanced technology" with the term "god", If it doesn't, then there is a more powerful cause behind this slightly less powerful technology. And we will keep going into the regress.
If we consider a chain of actual causes -i.e. real things outside our mind, and not numbers for example-, then infinite regresscannot occur, since this universe, us, is an element of this causal chain. Clearly it cannot be preceded by an infinite number of causes.

As for needing to worship God...that feels really condescending towards humanity. I mean, sure, people have their vices and obsessions, their passions.

I know. There is no shortage of people, however, whose passions literally destroyed them. Plenty of famous singers/actors couldn't handle the psychological burden of such careers, a handful of them committed suicide.
Let's take the example of Robet James Fischer, one of the greatest chess players of all time. If you read his biography, especially the part regarding his decline after losing the world champion title, you can say chess destroyed him, he literally became mentally ill. His biological father turned to be a theoretical physicist, clearly Robert Fischer was exceptionally gifted and could've had a much more respectable career in academia, he instead chose to push wood at the highest level just to follow his passion.
I read an article some years ago about the advice "Follow your passion" being the worst advice ever. Passion is for most people another word for what gives you dopamine rush when you start doing it, regardless of the long term consequences of pursuing it. 

But then we're getting into whether or not it is better to live life restricted by such rules, if some people are more capable than others of being responsible for themselves and not going off the deep end for food, drink, and money. And we're getting into the nitty gritty of what it actually means to be human. Is suffering a part of it? Is it inherently bad for people to fall down? I don't know... I tend to think it is better for people to experience and make choices based on the experiences they wish to have or don't have and to find accountability and motivation within themselves, rather than be restricted, to be compelled to behave a certain way. Barring societal rules that allow us to live together in harmony and thrive together as communities and a species, I don't see the benefit in giving over agency to some invisible being or power. I don't see how that makes you a better person or human.

That's a respectable point of view. However, I think that people, being in essence irrational beings, need to be told what to do on certain things. The purpose of life is one of them.