Per request, here's some target practice.

[Joe Bloe]

My response in red:

Per the request of an atheist I’ll put these here for your target practice. I would like to add that they are not proofs that God exists. They are all suppositions on the nature of God if he were to exist. I apologize for the lateness of this reply, time and energy have been getting the better of me lately.

1-confirmation of evidences are objectifiable when tested against outside sources correct? That's the crux of the arguement right? We can't provide you the type of verifiable evidence you require beause it's not objectifiable, regardless of how logical or tangible? The holy spirit is what we use for translation and verification. Regardless of how illogical / irrational to you or how intangible when you asked what's our standard, there it is.

2-Some theists feel God is a personal God, and a better statement would be our idea of God should be our own. Each of us (believers) has a holy spirit that reveals truth to us. Therefore the best idea you can have of God is your own.

A- Within our universe 99.9% of "things" have a cause.
a1- The human race should have a cause
a2- if Natural selection is the cause of the above then nature needs a cause
a3- matter that exists can not come from nothing
a4- matter then also needs a cause
a5- the laws of nature and nature itself as well as all mater should have a cause. This cause would have to be more complex and powerful than anything we have yet to encounter.
a6-Aside from a complex super-intelligent, super powerful alien species presents itself (which we assume they would have already) the best cause would be a singular source.
a6- The best cause IMO is God, due to his nature of existing outside the universe, having the attribute of creator, and all powerful .
At the moment you have merely assumed that there can be only one cause and that one cause must be god. You have further assumed that it is God's nature to exist outside the Universe! How could you possibly know that? You are merely avoiding the burden of proof. First you must describe your god and then prove it exists.

B- A extremely large percentage of our perceivable (neither macro or micro) day to day lives world appears to have design
b1- the cell is considered the smallest unit of matter alive
b2- cells that reproduce show structure and formation and have a purpose or direction of action
b3- out of all the atoms, photons, light wavelengths and stars in the universe it is unlikely to prove by randomness that life came from non-life.
b4- Something would have to “breathe life” into lifeless atoms based off of A
b5- It would take a lot less faith (since faith is required by both with current understanding) to believe that we were designed by a creator rather than believe life from un-life. Due to God’s attributes in the creation story it’s more likely to believe in 1 simple answer until science can put life into un-life, which (based off various religions) was only attributed to Gods in the past.
Again you avoid the burden of proof. You talk of "God's attributes in the creation story" so you are assuming the very thing that has yet to proved - God's existence.

Like you, I can marvel at the "apparent" design in the Universe, but it is impossible to go from a sense of awe to the claim that "God did it". I know I am harping on this point, but you cannot use God as an explanation until you first prove that God exists.

C - Synchronicity - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

D- The holy spirit
d1- there is a voice in side me that doesn't speak when I expect it to
d2- it comes at inopportune times when I wish I didn't have to hear what it said.
d3- it tells me of things I could have no knowledge of and guides me to things listed in C above.
d4- this things helps me understand when lost, speak when ask, and see when blind
d5- It manipulates the chemicals in my body when I wish it wouldn't, sometimes to my betterment, sometimes to mockery.
d6-Because of a 24 hr amnesia (car accident) I can discern experienced reality and rationalized reality. d7- Those around me don’t perceive me as delusional, nor do I perceive myself to be.
d6- I cannot discernibly say for sure but I see no reason for it to very likely come from an intangible extraneous source.
I don't really understand this subject (my fault, not yours), so I'll say nothing

E- The bible
e1- a historic written collection of stories, perceptions and ideals.
e2- written from the POV of multiple authors all relatively pointing towards the same truths
e3- has some historic content, but mostly subjective, however this doesn't contend falseness nor any conspiracies.
e4- When I read it in the most contextual and simple method I see little to no contention within it.
e5- Including the dead sea scrolls and apocrypha, they all describe in detail the attributes I see as reflecting God’s nature.
The bible is just a book. It tells us what some people think about the nature of God, but it does not prove that God exists.

F- Free will (or the perception of)
f1- particularly good article on my feelings here. http://www.ucg.org/bsc/04/freedomchoice.htm

G- Our understanding of our universe always falls short of absolutes
g1- "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths" (Proverbs 3:5-6)
g2- Having the "blank cheque" of God isn't a convenience, I'd personally rather have all of the answers
g3- Where our understanding fails, God is there to provide understanding , and has in the past
g4- standards without absolute goals fall short of the perfection required in the pursuit of truth.
You say "Where our understanding fails, God is there to provide understanding". In other words you are saying that you do not know how the Universe got here - and then immediately contradict yourself by saying that you do know that God created it! And again, you have assumed the existence of the very thing you are trying to prove.

H- Not only human perception but human sense falls short of capturing even a small portion of our reality.
h1- You eyes see everything, but our minds only subconsciously can focus on minutiae.
h2- that subconscious access is extremely difficult because our focus of will determines our perception.
h3- This varying scale of perception would then likely have a maximum and minimum.
h4- By God’s attributes listed he is the most likely source for the maximum of this scale
I'm not sure what you mean. It sounds like you are saying that humans lack perception and human senses fall short of understanding reality, yet you infer that you do perceive things correctly and your senses do lead you to an understanding (of God). I think that idea needs a bit of work - or maybe I have misunderstood you (curse my limited perception).

I’ll add more tomorrow. transcendental idealism, morality, prayer, etc. Running out of steam quick.
It might be better not to add any more until we get this lot sorted out.