Evidence for the existence of God

[Garcian Smith]

Quick refutation of the (fairly standard, and debunked hundreds of times) arguments in the OP:

1) Your first premise is prima-facie unsound, because it contains the phrase, "that we know the origin of." We know the origin of DNA; it comes from basic organic compounds that formed during Earth's primordial phase. DNA is one "language, code, protocol, and encoding/decoding mechanism" that we know comes not from a mind, but from a certain set of conditions existing on Earth at a certain point in time. The premise, therefore, is only sound if you assume the very thing you're trying to prove.

2) An absurd non-sequitur. "Moral relativism is wrong. In a universe where God exists, moral relativism is right. Therefore, God exists." Reduce this to symbolic logic, and you have, "Not A. If B, then not A. Therefore, B." If you can't see why this is wrong, then I suggest you take a basic logic course and then come back.

3) Again, a non-sequitur. "Several prominent evolutionary biologists doubt that the mind is made up purely of matter. Therefore, God exists." I know that's probably not what you were trying to say, but that's all I could glean from that mess. Also, those quotes from Darwin and Haldane are horribly out of context - the first quote likely refers to the fact that energy processes in the brain are largely responsible for the existence of thought, and the second is a valid evolutionary question, not a representation of doubt over naturalism.

4) More begging the question and out-of-context quotes. You assume that the soul exists straightaway without providing any proof for that assertion. In addition, all of your arguments rely upon twisting and reading into quotes to an absurd extent. The quote from Habermas and Moreland is so meaningless outside of its original context that you could interpret it to mean anything. The quote from Nagel supposes that all the knowledge in the world cannot tell you the same thing as experience, which says nothing of the soul or materialism. Finally, your last point addresses the question of compatibility of determinism and free will, which I've taken an entire semester's worth of classes on. On that subject, I'll just say that there are very strong and convincing arguments for their compatibility.

5) This is just one of Aquinas' old arguments for the existence of God. It's unsound because premise (a) is false. Of the universes we know of, we have only a sample size of one: this one. And, because of that, we do not know how whether all universes' beginnings have a cause. Therefore, not all beginnings of universes necessarily have a cause.

6) This one displays a profound ignorance toward the concept of the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle actually evidences the non-existence of God. According to anthropic reasoning, we only see the sort of universe that supports life because we can only EXIST in the sort of universe that supports life. We therefore have a confirmation bias toward a universe that appears to be "designed." Anything else - including supposing the existence of an intelligent designer - would be extraneous, and should be "shaved" away via the principle of Occam's razor.

Furthermore, the universe is not fine-tuned. From what we know if it, it's actually an extremely chaotic place, given to black holes, supernovas, spontaneous creation and destruction of all sorts. If God exists, he must not have been a very "intelligent" designer to have put forth such a hostile place.

So, to conclude: Take a few classes on logic and check your arguments to see if they've been debunked before (chances are they have) before you try to spout them off as conclusive. Philosophers have been trying to prove the existence of God for millenniums. The chances of you - or someone else with no background in logic - doing so on a message board is infinitesimally small.