Existing scientific evidence justifies believe in God

Thanks Pro, for your 3rd round and your "clarification to everyone" about stipulations.Pro spent a lot of time trying to link digital information and DNA.Pro also spent a lot of time excusing "necessary evils."Here's my take.*Omnibenevolence*Pro makes an analogy between digital information and DNA, genomes and operating systems, and human language's math and DNA's math.Well, analogy is not equality.I get that languages, be they human, computer, or genetic, show similarities because they all function in a similar way, but this does not speak to whether they have a common intelligence, a common designer, or, more importantly, a common omnibenevolence.Birdsong (birds' language) is linguistically very similar to human language phonologically and syntactically, but that doesn't mean that human intelligence is being used to organize bird sounds in a particular order or that avian intelligence is being used to arrange human sounds in a specific structure."both birdsong and human language are hierarchically organized according to particular syntactic constraints, birdsong structure is best characterized as 'phonological syntax', resembling aspects of human sound structure.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...But bird languages lack semantics and words, so the intelligence they're using to create their syntax isn't the same as the intelligence we're using to create syntax in our languages; though you can draw an analogy, you cannot infer common intelligence.So, I really don't care if Pro wants to draw analogies among languages.These analogies do no indicate a common intelligence or benevolence, much like my birdsong analogy doesn't indicate common intelligence or benevolence.The problem here is that Pro is attempting to prove that science justifies a belief in an omnibenevolence.So, even if Pro got to the link between "intelligently designed languages" and "DNA," this wouldn't be science justifying a belief in an omnibenevolence, rather, this would be science justifying a belief in a cryptic prankster.Either way, omnibenevolence means unlimited goodness.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Anything with unlimited goodness would have no evil, nor be responsible for allowing evil.But Pro made it quite clear in his 3rd round:"Viruses are considered evil designs because they are responsible for a number of harmful diseases in animals and humans...Consequently, viruses are natural but necessary evils."My response:Pro clearly admits here that his omnibenevolent creator not only has created an evil in viruses, but that this evil is necessary.This not only negates his god's omnibenevolence, but the fact that the evil is *necessary* means that god was forced to create the evil and *could not* have done it any other way.If he could have created everything without evil, and he has every power to do so, then shouldn't his benevolence coax him to use his omnipotence to just not create evil.Why is evil necessary for your omnibenevolent, omnipotent god Pro?Does god have the power to create all of existence without evil?Why/why not?*Cancer and Mutations*Pro just sort of continues on excusing the evils of nature that his god supposedly created via population control and resource competition.That's really it.Well, this again shows that god can't create and sustain life without having to kill innocent organisms to control the population explosion he knew would happen to the things he planned to have it happen to because of pressures he knowingly put in to place to mess with his creations.Why can't an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god create this beautiful universe without evil, innocent death, necessary evils, or necessary population control via harmful evil viruses?Why can't an omnipotence do that?