Can God be seen in the maths?

[The Grand Nudger]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code.

"Machine code or machine language is a set of instructions executed directly by a computer's central processing unit (CPU). Each instruction performs a very specific task, such as a load, a jump, or an ALU operation on a unit of data in a CPU register or memory. Every program directly executed by a CPU is made up of a series of such instructions."

A wiki written by a programmer, not a circuit manufacturer, lol.  Yes, machine code does all of that...as I already said.  It does not do so, however..without a program or direct prompt.  Yes, every program is made up of machine language, because machine language is the system description out of which the abstraction of programming language is comprised....as I already said. The machine language itself, exists independantly of any program or instructions or prompts. Any system, of any kind, has a machine language. Even accidental or random systems. If a stick falls on a rock and overhangs it has a machine language. It's i/o, 1/0, Left/right, Falling or rising. Just like a circuit. That language does not need to be designed, it doesn;t even need to be observed, it could be the proverbial fallen tree in a forest. Having a machine language, itself, does not grant the system the ability to execute a program...for that it needs program memory (showing my age here...but early gaming consoles had a machine language but required external cartridges of program memory to execute their function - to play the game).

Do you want to have a wiki fight, or discuss why the argument from code -or- machine language is flawed? If you want an accessible and authoritative source on how and why computers work, and what is what..try Nand2Tetris, not wiki.....

Personally, I find it far more useful to accept what a person gets right, or semi right in their god arguments...and start from that point - rather than worry about a trap that will never be sprung, or argue every word. From that point of agreement, we can then show that a valid inference and sound propositions leads to directly the opposite of the god conclusion - as it does in the case of dna, programming, or machine language.

-If- they think those things are informative, somehow, as to the existence of a necessary designing god...then that necessary designing god does not exist, not by means of arguing with every jot and tittle of their propositions..but by accepting them and demonstrating that such a god is not necessary, at all..with reference to those things they decided to leverage in their inference.

---

We can, if you like, explore the "where does the program come from "trap" - it's going to fail for the same reasons a the dna argument failed.  It comes from environmental prompts.  It comes from the behaviors of the materials out of which the system is comprised.  It -can- come from a designer...as some high level languages do...but computers are, themselves..now capable of writing code....so, the designer -if- there is a "designer" doesn't have to be intelligent, or sentient, or a being of any particular description.  

Yet again we see that the god proposition is useless.  Yet again the inference is flawed, the propositions are factually inaccurate, and the conclusion irrelevant.  Yet again it's as fucked up as it can possibly be.

We can do the same for fine tuning, even though we might think that the idea as expressed and used by the religious is bunk...we can accept for purposes of argument that the universe is fne tuned and show how this, too, -if true- argues against their necessary creator.

"God" is a thoroughly bankrupt idea.