>>Presenting objective evidence will give you an even balance.
>Human conscience.

Human conscience is your evidence? Are you implying that the only explanation for conscience is related to god? I disagree. At some point in our past it is quite possible that there were human ancestors with no conscience, and some with simply due to the complexity of evolution. Given the right circumstances, natural selection might just guarantee that those with a conscience are able to leave more decendants than those without.

In any case, it is simple to look around and find those without an adequate conscience. Does the fact that there are church going human beings who's conscience is barely dectable support your claim? I dunno, but thats something to keep in mind.

Finally, there is another explanation for conscience individuals if the natural selection idea fly with you:
http://www.iht.com/articles/65650.html

Studying neural activity in young women who were playing a classic laboratory game called the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which participants can select from a number of greedy or cooperative strategies, researchers found that when the women chose mutualism over "me-ism," the mental circuitry normally associated with reward-seeking behavior swelled to life.

...

Instead, the brightest signals arose in cooperative alliances and in those neighborhoods of the brain already known to respond to desserts, pictures of pretty faces, money, cocaine and any number of licit or illicit delights.

Excersizing human conscience appears to pleasure a human being in the same manner that snorting a line of coke does.

So, the existence (which is controvercial in itself) of conscience is explained by the complexity producing attributes of evolution as easily as pointing to religion; and the free use of conscience can be simply explained by the same factories that drive us to... "sin"... in a bizarre twist of irony.

Any other evidence you'd like the jury to consider today?