God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

My opponent appears to argue that since the universe appears "simulated" by our human understanding, that would be evidence for a creator; but is it? It's up to me to argue that it is not. "Premise 1- The universe is literally a hologram. It's a projection of information from a flat surface. Nothing you see around you is real. Everything is just a holographic image projected from a flat surface. Science is just now starting to understand this. . http://www.nature.com...... Premise 2- Observer bias, helps prove we are in a simulated universe as well. Matter acts different when we don't pay attention to it. When we look away from matter it acts like a wave of possibility. However, when we observe matter it acts solid. We see it what It does and how it behaves. This short video may explain it better. . http://m.youtube.com...... Premise 3- The universe is pixelated. Just like a video game our universe is pixelated. We are clearly living in a simulated universe. . http://www.naturalnews.com...... Premise 4- Human DNA is really just computer code. It's a way to store information. It's not a natural process, but unnatural and the obvious creation of a higher being. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...; It appears my opponent has decided to argue from the assumption that DNA and anything else is, in reality, code. However, I see a problem with such an assertion. This argument is derived from the assertion that since DNA is supposedly a language, a language can only come from a mind. It is a sensible argument, but the problem is that DNA is classified as language only by human understanding and logic. DNA and information, at the universe's beginnings, cannot be codes as we define them, because there was no intelligent mind to classify them as such, and language as we know it had not existed back then, so I don't believe it is logical to assume that DNA and information is a language and then assert an intelligence was responsible for it without knowing what "language" would've been like back then before humans. It simply does not follow. The same premise and logic would also apply to the argument of a pixelated and supposedly simulated universe. Conclusion: DNA and information cannot be codes or a language as they are only classified as such by our human knowledge and understanding, and language as we know it had not existed at the time of the inception of information as there was no intelligence to classify it as such. So this would not show evidence of a creator. A pixelated universe in no way serves as evidence for a creator using that same premise and logic. Even so, these appear to be non-sequiturs for evidence of a creator My opponent has used here a more logical and valid version of an ontological argument. He states that if I can disprove his first premise of the MOA, it would fall apart. So I shall focus on that. My rebuttal to the first premise is that the possibility that a greatest possible being would exist would immediately and only follow evidence shown directly for a being such as this, or evidence that it would be needed for any process relating to the origins of the universe. So taking this logic into consideration, the first premise appears to have been weakened or destroyed. I gave it my best, now we will see what my opponent has to say to my rebuttal. Summing up my rebuttals here: If there is no real evidence for a creator and there is evidence that a creator would not be needed for the universe, (Which would count as evidence against God. ) then the only logical conclusion one can come to is that a creator does not exist; and even if one does, there would be no need to worship such a being if scriptural accounts of creation have been unequivocally disproven. Skepticism of anything else in the texts would soon follow. I now give the floor to Wylted and wish him good luck as I see if my rebuttals hold up.