Evidence for the existence of God

[CrashMan]

The very end of this is the most interesting, so skip to that if you would like. 

A ton of inacuracies in the original post so I will go over them:

1. The Existence of the DNA CODE

You contradict yourself here.  You say all *list* that we know the origin of.  If DNA were a code (which it really isn't) you are using that fact that we don't know the origin to prove the origin is from a god.  We don't know the origin therefore you can't say it comes from a mind.

DNA is not a code or a plan or any sort of intelligent design.  It is just the way proteins interact with one another.  These interactions (trillions of them) are fairly simple and straight forward at the microscale (though protein folding is still a bit of an unknown) but when you view it from the Macro scale it seems very complex.  DNA's behavior is not one of design but of eventuality due to the nature of the proteins.  We interpret it as a 'code' because its the easiest way for us to understand the grand scheme of what happens in all DNA processes.

2. The Existence of Objective Moral Standards

There is no moral standard, if there were all animals would follow it.  Do we consider cats immoral because they kill for pleasure?

Why we consider certain things 'moral' and certain things 'immoral' is not a devine blessing, but a subconcious desire not to have pain come to us.  We don't kill because we don't want to kill.  We don't steal because we don't want to be stolen from. etc

Eventually these got tied in to society and culture and became law and were drilled even deeper in to our heads as children.  If any one set moral standards it was our ancestors, not a god.

3. The Existence of Rationality

Again, there is an inherant contradiction here.  If all of our mental capacities are a process of chemical reactions (which they are) then we don't KNOW they are true, we don't KNOW anything.  However this even strengthens the idea that these theories are correct, not discredits them (sorry Haldane.)  Since they are just reactions they are a reaction to stimulus occuring over a set path.  These signals are processed and an output determined. 

This output is replicated and if it is universal it is truely a law. 

Would you say a calculator's results are untrusworthy because it follows a set path and is a simple mechanical function?

Also, your idea seems to be based on the premise that natural facts are only true if humans observe them to be true.  Nature is the way it is independant of human observation.

4. The Existence of Consciousess/Mind

Way too many errors in here to cover them all.

The most grevious being the premise that even if we had enough knowledge to have a complete understanding of how a bat's brain works we would still not know what it is like to be a bat.

How can you possibly claim that.  No one has ever had all that information.  You are basing your premise on the desire for it not to be true.

Let me ask you this.  If said god exists, does HE know what it is to be bat.  and if so, how?  And an excuse of "because he is all knowing" is not valid, as it just strengthens my argument that if you know every thing about a bat you can know what it is to be a bat.

Overall, how do you know you have conciousness that is outside the brain's physical function.  A nueron may not be able to have that ability, but a single transistor does not have the ability to calculate a taylor series, yet in conjunction multiple do.  Same with the neurons.  You can't claim the brain is so complex that we don't understand it fully, and then claim that conciousness is so complex that it can't reside only in the brain.

5. The Existence of the Universe

a. Can that be proven?

b. How do you know the universe has a beginning?  Why is it easier to believe a being existed eternally, but not matter?

The big bang theory, as you have shown, does not presuppose the non-existance of matter or energy (as they are interchangeable.)  In fact it relies on it.  And the big bang theory is not the theory of the creation of matter, but of the creation of the universe (or THIS universe as there is no proof that there aren't further reaches of space where something similar could have occured) as we observe it. 

6. The Universe is fine-tuned delicately

ugh, intelligent design.  What those who follow this theory do not realize is that if the universe was NOT this way, no person would be around to observe it.  Therefore, if these things were to be observed they would HAVE to allow life to exist for them to be observed.  The fact that we can observer these things is in no indication they were designed intelligently to be such.  It just means that the way the universe is allowed for the creation of life and the observance of its nature. 

Proof of the non-existance of a Christian god:

The main issue with a Christian god is all of the classifications christians have given him "Omnipotent, Omnipressent, Perfect, ever lasting"

The problem here is that all these things are inherantly contradictory.  How can a being that is all powerful be classified (or even truely be) anything else.  If something is all powerful, they have the power to do anything, including not existing, not being everywhere, and the power to make mistakes.  If you say "God can't make mistakes" you are limiting his power.  If you say "God can make mistakes" you are saying he is imperfect.

There is one absolute proof of the non-existance of omnipotence that I came up with (at least I have never heard an example otherwise)

If God is all powerful, he has the power to create a person that has absolute free will.  However, upon creating said being, he would not have the power to make that person DO anything without taking his free will away.  If it were possible to take the free will away, the person would not have had absolute free will to begin with.

So it is impossible for omnipotence to exist as it is impossible to force a being with free will to do something it chooses not to.