"An omnipotent, omniscient being that stays true to form may never do such a 'humanly' thing as leave a trademark or the likes of"

Why not?

Here's a little point you forgot: The big bang is proven true by objective science. The existence of a god named Steve is not. If you can easily tell that the universe is created by Steve, I can easily say that it is not and that your point is utterly worthless. Sadly, unlike the Big-Bang, no science known to man ever proven the existence of any bronze-age fairytale.

How does one exist outside of existence? In all of existence there are no contradictions only flawed premises. The existence of nothing may be highly improbable but not impossible. The idea that highly improbable events do not occur is easily refuted mathematically. Highly improbable outcomes become certain If all possible outcomes are highly improbable.

The Big Bang Theory does the same. The prevailing theory, The Big Bang Theory posits a "singularity" of which no one can adequately explain. Attempts to explain it lead to concepts such as "infinite density" which mathematically is as mind boggling as God.

Whether it was a "single mind" or a "singularity" that created this universe, if humanity is to know the universe objectively then either way less and less discoveries will be the case. If the universe can be known wholly objectively that if and when humanity achieves this there will be no more discoveries.

The existence of nothing is impossible. Nothing can exist outside of existence. Therefore, there is no need for a first mover/prime cause, and there can't be any such thing as an omniscient, all powerful, and all loving being.

Why would that be true? I don't see the correlation between physics discoveries, which I see as human understanding of the universe, and the universe God created? An omnipotent, omniscient being that stays true to form may never do such a 'humanly' thing as leave a trademark or the likes of. This is the dangers of putting God on the same level as what it is to be human, IMHO.

However, the deity hypothesis asks for an oversimplification of our universe's understanding. The hypothesis states that everything in the universe is the fruits of the labor of a single, unknowable entity. If this was the case, there would be less and less discoveries in the fields of physics, astrophysics and genetics since a single mind would had produced everything we can see. In this case, the last scientific discovery to make would be to find the "Made by Steve" trademark somewhere in the universe.

A lot of great thoughts have been expressed. I also think that there is much to learn in our universe.
However, I am now leaning towards learning as I go along, not relying on someone elses wisdom that states: "I also, haven't seen it, but I know it's there!"

In today's cosmology there is a belief that the universe is made up mostly of a material that cannot be seen, cannot be interacted with, and yet we somehow know it exists by how it affects things around it, yet never leaves a trace. Sounds pretty familiar if you tell me. No one will claim we as yet know everything about the universe, I say the same about God, it is something that is a continuous learning and discovering process.

Consciousness is the mind, existence is the brain. This is the fundamental Mind/Body problem that has never been resolved. There have long been two camps, those who believe the mind is separate from the brain (Dualists) and those who believe the brain and the mind are the same (Monists). We can engage in a Hegelian dialectic making our best arguments for each, and I would offer as my thesis that Dualism. If you choose, you can take the antithesis of Monism. In my best argument, the closest I can come to finding a resolution of this Mind/Body Problem is to ask who is making that choice? Is it your brain compelling you to make the choice, or is it your mind simply making the choice?

The mind is part of existence. It's primacy of existence vs primacy of consciousness.

While I have long been a fierce admirer of Rand and for quite a while considered myself an Objectivist, many other Objectivist would castigate me for my belief in God. I was born and raised Catholic, and while I have many issues with the Catholic Church, particularly the Vatican, I have never rejected my religion, and even though that religion demands I never dabble with other religions, I have. I have studied Zen, the Tao and Buddhism all as a part of my philosophical yearnings.

I have also studied Descartes, and on the issue of the Mind/Body Problem I fall squarely in the Dualist camp and it appears that Ayn Rand falls squarely in the monist camp at one moment and then a moment later it appears as if Rand is a dualist. She argues the Objectivist should reject the Mind/Body dichotomy but then later will make arguments such as this:

"I want to stress this; it is a very important distinction. A great number of philosophical errors and confusions are created by failing to distinguish between consciousness and existence -- between the process of consciousness and the reality of the world outside, between the perceiver and the perceived."

~Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology~

This distinction between consciousness and existence is dualism. She is arguing that the mind is something separate from existence and as such something different from the brain, or body. Rand understands on a fundamental level that our mind is separate from our body and that fundamental understanding becomes a basis for spirituality. Why Rand had such a problem with this is her problem, but it has never been mine. I can fully appreciate her distaste for those she calls mystics and I can still be in awe of the mystical.

The mystics she refers to are those who embrace a hooga booga language to mystify their laity. Lawyers are as guilty as shamans when it comes to priest class mystical incantations. Legalese is nothing more than that. It does not speak to the law, but rather seeks to subvert it and the law they want you to believe is an invention of mankind is as natural as your own existence.

As to your question of the impossibility of a "Supreme Being" being missed, my answer to you is yes, and would ask you to take a look in the mirror tonight to catch a glimpse of that Supreme Being. Not the physical body you inhabit, but the Supreme Being that is you. Take a look, it is impossible to miss and that is the relationship between observer and observed.

It all depends on what you think "proof" of a Supreme Being is. A flower blooming, a healed illness, or actual scientific proof. I grew up religious, but I no longer am as I haven't been to church in decades and don't care for organized religion whatsoever, although I haven't moved completely away from faith itself. It isn't logical on most days, but I can't totally let it go, nor do I want to. To each his own...