Therefore, God is nowhere.
Where is this single moment of "creation"? Which point?
Everything is information depending on the system. Systems define what is information or what is not. A molecule might not have any value of information for X system, but it can present a valuable information for Y system.
It does. You still didn't define what do you mean by code. If you mean DNA, in this case DNA is not created either. It evolved through chemical agreements through time, and still evolving using species.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that: You will claim something has a starting and/or finishing point and I will prove otherwise. The idea behind my claim is simple. If:
a) any occurrence has a history behind it, that is to say "doesn't appear out of nowhere" but progress through time and used by another beings/systems
b) any occurrence does not disappear out of existence but transforms into something else
Therefore you can not talk about absolute starting and end points.
What a bold claim. Yes you can write it down; but the problem is this: Does it work?
Here is a definition for you from Wikipedia:
This definition doesn't talk about duplication or anything for a good reason: Because duplication or making working systems depending upon scientific knowledge is "technology". If you find any definition of physics that mixes up science and technology, you can bring it up, we can have a look.
First, you don't write a code to describe the world, you simply try to formulate the actual happenings in order to understand. Therefore, your conclusion of "Universe is based on a code" is similar to claim that "God exists", pure imagination and unsubstantiated supposition.
DNA is not a product of a code. DNA is the code for the most of the living thing (viruses that works on RNA is excluded, yet if you think that viruses needs a DNA host to survive we can say the "all" living things instead of the most).
And since DNA is not product of a code, according to your logic, it shouldn't be the result of creation. Because your logic makes DNA as a creation "if" DNA was coming from a code. Since this is not the case, will you modify your statement, will you prove or argue that DNA is coming from a code (where was it written before DNA, how did it emerge? etc.), or will you find another excuse to insist upon "creation"? Which one?
My assumption is simple: There is no creator. I designed the subject example in order to clarify what type of "creator" you are talking about; not because of my understanding of a creator; I don't have any image of creator in my mind. And I hope we don't compare the local time zones between God and us; we are discussing an assumption of instant creation claim vs. evolving structures of the universe. If we can follow the elements of process when we look at natural beings, therefore this process requires certain steps: It's against the idea of being 0 and suddenly being 1.
My world view is not "a creator vs no creator"; it's probably your world view and you are clearly standing behind the creator side. My one is simpler: "What creator"?
You are imposing the idea of a "creator" without explaining the "logic" (that's what you call it) or the story behind this assumption. Plus, you are also claiming that there is no structural difference between the numbers of creators. Moreover, you are using natural or human made technology in order to argue your God idea (and "the logic behind it") without giving any clue about what this God is made of, where does it stay or what is the limits of its power. You can not, because the answers of these questions are nothing, nowhere/everywhere and limitless respectively. This kind of logic or argument is not a type of logic I am familiar with.
"Logical assumption" is not something that you can say anything you like and claim it as "logical". "Logical assumption" requires some proposition, statement that can be tested (this is very important: tested) according to certain parameters; it must be arguable according to the rules. If you are talking about a "creator", or a "God", this is not a "logical" argument, it's only a claim.
Within the code, within the code: What code?
So you can freely claim that physical universe perform on codes, more dramatically you believe in this, but when someone asks you "what are they?" you simply divert the topic to physics books and other excuses. You simply show me a source, a site, a textbook where I can check out your "universe on code" claim is mentioned, then I will go and check it, promise.
Guess what you are not able to do that...
Already explained; not logical, just a wishful thinking. And for the proof... Proof of which argument?
Just for yourself, unbeknown to us.
Physics don't work with assumptions; at least not the type of "assumption" in your mind. Fitting into mathematics is not a criteria for Physics, there are calculations in physics that ends up with "infinity" and this is simply meaningless. But this doesn't stop physicists in terms of "continuing their research", they still try to approach differently. Because problem is still there; for instance: Black holes. What are they going to do know? "Black holes doesn't match up with our maths, so let's drop this topic." Is that so? What if current mathematical modelling is not enough to describe what is going on?
"The assumption that everything is physical can never be proven" you say. This is absolutely right: For instance, idea of God can not be physically proven. Because it's not the subject of physics. If you go back the definition I provided above, physics deals with physical things, with nature. "Everything" is not even a concept. Because anybody can fill the contents of "Everything" with "anything" they like. Physics obviously can not deal with this type of arbitrary approach.
Is this a conclusion, because it sounds like one. If you do not want to discuss the existence of God, it is your thing, I can understand. But don't try to impose a strange idea that the existence of God is irrelevant to this topic. It may not be relevant for you, but some people might want to know the subject of discussion.
Last edited:
