God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

"It appears my opponent has decided to argue from the assumption that DNA and anything else is, in reality, code." I'm not assuming anything. I explained that DNA is actually computer code. It's a little bit more advanced the the 0s and 1s you see now. It's four symbols instead of just 2, but any computer programmer who takes a look into DNA is in awe over the similarities. http://ds9a.nl... http://x-evolutionist.com... Seriously click on those sources. When I say it resembles computer code, I'm putting it mildly. DNA is computer code. My opponent literally does nothing to counter my argument. "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." The only tools we have to gain knowledge is human understanding and logic. How would pro suggest we come to knowledge if not for logic and human understanding? My opponent with this statement is atleast conceding that my argument that DNA is a computer language is logical. "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." Computer code is a recognizable language. We don't have to be around when the language was created to recognize it as one. We understand that Dolphins have their own language. We certainly weren't around to see how that naturally evolved. http://www.forbes.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... "It simply does not follow. The same premise and logic would also apply to the argument of a pixelated and supposedly simulated universe." My opponent is refusing to attack my other arguments, and they therefore stand. "Even so, these appear to be non-sequiturs for evidence of a creator" This is extremely rude. My opponent is refusing to attack my arguments. If showing that the universe is exactly as one would expect if it were a creation isn't evidence for it being a creation, than nothing would satisfy my opponent, as proof. I have proven that this universe behaves exactly as one would expect from a computer simulation (aka intelligent design). If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, well then by golly it's a duck. "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. My simulation argument, proves a grand architect (aka computer programmer). You have failed to defeat premise number 1 or number 2. " 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." My opponent is attempting to move the goal posts here. If my opponent wanted me to argue for the biblical God he should have been more clear from the outset.