Originemological Argument

Drafted Mar 2000; revised Dec 2000
by Joey Lawsin

Does God exist?

According to the Originemological Argument, God does not exist. The conclusion is based on three basic lawsinic principles: the Inlearning Konstant, the Codexation Dilemma, and the First Law of Originemology [Lawsin 1988].

1. The first principle, known as The Inlearning Konstant (Think), states that information can only be acquired by humans in two and only two ways: by choice and by chance. By Choice, information is obtained from parents, teachers, books, schools, friends, lessons from animals, or from nature. By Chance, information arises from discovering new things, fortunate accidents, unexpected experiences, unknown events, and nature's interventions. Regardless of the method, all information ultimately are acquired or borrowed originally from one's environment, a part of nature. Information comes from Nature. Humans, animals, plants, and other things in the environment are individual pieces of information. Even their actions, forms, movements, and features constitute pieces of information that can be inlearned, imitated, or acquired by other humans, animals, and plants. Nature is the original sources that supply information. Every piece of information, whether acquired by choice or chance, can be traced back to the external world. Nature, as the collective external world, emerges as the ultimate repository—the Mother of all Information. The acquisition of information by chance or by choice is called Inlearning.

The abstract idea of gods came from nature as well. The original source can be traced back to how humans interacted with nature. It started when the very first primeval man, without a piece of single information in his mind, like the minds of all newly born babies, interacted with his surroundings. Through curiosity, he began to explore his environment and gained information by choice or by chance. Using his senses, he acquired new pieces of information and expanded his horizons. He observed how animals behave and mimicked their behaviors. He learned to kill like animals hunting their prey to eat. He learned to survive against all odds. He became powerful among the animals. But when he experienced the physical power of lightning, thunder, rain, and the sun, he thought that something or someone was more powerful than him. He thought these natural events were acts of some powerful beings and over time the idea of gods evolved. God was conceptualized, worshiped, passed on from father to son over generations, written and printed on texts, embraced by cultures, and personified all over the world. God was born. He gave birth to a god.  He codexated God. He made god. Man created God. 

2. The second principle, known as The Codexation Dilemma, asserts that a person can't think of something without associating it with a physical object. This principle underscores the interconnectedness of Humans' ideas and Nature's objects. The idea of an apple is real because it can be physically associated with an object that can be touched, seen, or tasted. The idea of a bird is real because it can be physically sensed when it flies playfully in the sky or chirps a beautiful song while sitting on a branch of a tree. The ideas of air, sound, temperature, and other invisible parameters are real because they can be detected by scientific instruments and can even be calculated using mathematical equations. Aside from association and detection, trees, birds, apples, flowers, thunder, air, and the universe have their own individual unique material of identification. 

God doesn't exist because his abstractness can't be associated with any objective reality, measured physically or even detected by precision instruments. God could not be associated with any objects because God himself has no personal unique physical identity. A thunder could not be a god because a thunder can be detected and has its own unique physical identity - a thunder. A flower could not be god, because a flower can be sensed and has its own unique material identity - a flower. The universe could not be god, because the universe can be both sensed, detected, and identified with its own unique physical concrete materials. Nature is nature. God could not be associated with any solid material because every physical object has already been identified individually with its own physical tangible uniqueness. If God is an idea that can't be transformed into physical reality and no material evidence can prove his existence physically, then God is not real. He is nothing but a mere notion... a concept ... a belief that resides only in the world of imagination. God is just an idea. Furthermore, if God is the only being before everything else, where did he get his ideas as proposed in the theory of the Caveman-in-the-Box Trilogy. How did he know the figures circle, square, triangle, and all other geometrical figures?   How did he determine that the planets should be round, that the Milky Way should be spiral, and that animals should be cylindrical? Where did he learn all these shapes? Did he live previously in a material world much like Earth? The theory that asserts the inability of abstract ideas to transform into physical realities without the material world is called the Codexation Dilemma.

3. The third principle is known as The First Law of Originemology. It posits that everything has a beginning. It is a natural law – a universal law that is experienced from the time of birth by everything and everyone including God (if he exists). It was just the beginning was there and was not there.

Thus, if God is the beginning, he must evolve first from simple to complex. Seeds turn into trees, cells into humans, celestial elements into galaxies, and back to their "atomic" origins. If he has magical powers and created himself, then particle materials and building instructions must both exist first before he can create himself. Something has to come first - it's either god, materials, or instructions. If he popped out from nothing, then he contradicts the Single Theory of Everything. 

Also, no one can create something material without some materials at hand. This is The Zizo Effect (what zips in must zips out). Furthermore, no one can create anything without anything at hand. So to create god, something or maybe nothing or both must come first before him. If God has a beginning, then God has a source of origin, even a birthdate, a birthplace, or a family? But if God has no beginning and no end and has existed always, then it defies the Law of Originemology, the Law of Exponential Growth and Logarithmic Decay, and the Zizo Effect. Either his Existance is true or the Laws are false or vice versa.  But The Laws provides true concrete evidence while his Existance provides no evidence at all. Where is God? If God is nowhere to be found, therefore, God doesn't exist. The discipline that studies the roots or source of origin of everything and everyone is called Originemology

Thus, the notion of God is an enduringly imaginary construct. Despite its persistence in human discourse, no empirical evidence or concrete object beyond the confines of the mind substantiates God’s abstract nature. This presents a Codexation Dilemma: God defies association with anything in the natural world. The inherent physical identities and properties of natural phenomena clash with the divine persona and supernatural attributes attributed to God. It is an Identity Crisis—a tension between the conceptual and the corporeal.

If we trace the original idea of God back to its roots, we find that it emerged from our interactions with nature. Early humans, devoid of pre-existing knowledge, explored their environment. Curiosity led them to acquire information through sensory perception. They observed animal behavior, mimicked actions, and learned survival strategies. Yet, encounters with natural forces—lightning, thunder, rain—hinted at something beyond the tangible. Thus, the abstract concept of gods was born.

However, this divine abstraction remains confined to the mind. God exists as a mental impression, a concept, a notion—forever elusive in the realm of codexation. Without unique identification through association, detection, and tangible representation, God remains intangible.

In conclusion, abstract ideas attain legitimacy when they are linked to tangible objects, thereby manifesting as physical reality. This concept is encapsulated in what is known as the Dualpairing of Reality; the Law of Codexation. The idea of god remains an imaginary idea even today as we speak because no physical object or solid evidence outside the mind can transform god's abstractness into physical reality; A Codexation Dilemma. God could not even be associated with anything in nature, since all things in nature have their own physical identities and properties that conflict with the divine persona and supernatural attributes of God; An Identity Crisis. If the original idea of god was borrowed from nature, created by man, and can't be represented by any physical object, then God exists only in the mind. He is a mental impression ... a concept ... a notion .... that will never ever be codexated. If God can't be uniquely identified by association, detection, and codexation, lo and behold, God doesn't exist. 

A side note: While ideas originate from humans, their abstraction becomes tangible when linked to material objects. Consider gravity—an invisible force, yet detectable through instruments and mathematical equations. Love, too, is abstract, yet its sensation arises when two consenting individuals share a magical connection. Democracy, an abstract concept, finds physical representation in the collective mass of people constituting a government and the laws they enact. In contrast, God, despite being symbolically represented by devoted communities and divine laws, eludes physical detection. God will always remain an abstract idea because Man created God.

Note: The Illusion of Reality and the Lawsinium Fallacy are the other two assertions offered by the author that prove God doesn't exist. A thorough discussion of these topics can be found in the book Originemology.

" The First Law of Originemology states that everything has a beginning. 

It is a universal law experienced by everything and everyone including God. " 

~ Joey Lawsin

About the Author :

Joey Lawsin is the author behind the new school of thought "Originemology". He is a revisionist who wants to change the world by rewriting the textbooks with new concepts that debunk the old scientific, theological, and philosophical ideas of antiquity. He published a book in Physics, created a conscious machine known as Biotronics, and formulated the assertion on "The Originemological Argument". The article above is an excerpt from his book "The Bible Proves God Does not Exist".

Disclaimer: This article is intellectual property. The author retains the copyright to most of the research materials on this site unless cited otherwise. Some of the articles are edited on a day-to-day basis without notice and incorrect spelling, punctuation, and grammar can be found in any of the documents. If you are interested in using any of these works for the purpose of scholarly discussion or study, please first inform the author by email or cite the author's name or source as follows: A Journal of a Creative Mind, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Codexation Dilemma

First drafted 1988 published 2000 revised 2011

by Joey Lawsin

Codexation is a new field of study that explores the transformations of information from ideas to realities, from abstracts to physicals, or from the self's inner subjective mind to nature's outer objective world. Joey Lawsin technically coined this transcodexation or transcodification of information as Information Codexation. Through this research, he empirically attempts to answer a simple curious question: - If the mental outputs of our brain are merley "pixels" that simulate the Physicals fiber of reality; does this imply that the outside material inputs detected by our biological sensors are also just "pixels" that transcodify in forming the Abstracts frame of reality? This enigmatic transcodification of Abstracts and Physicals is known as the Codexation Dilemma (Lawsin, 1988).

Codexation, which is one of the signature theories of Originemology,  also deals with the following ingenious scientific questions: (i) Can man think of something without associating his thought with a physical object? If he thinks of an idea, is the idea real without a physical object associated to it? If he thinks of God, does it mean God doesn't exist if he can't associate it to any physical object? (ii) When does his abstract idea become physically real? Is the idea of the letter "Q" real when he writes it on a piece of paper? If so, how does this abstract figure become a physical reality without being naturally inherent? (iii) How does the letter Q scriptionally "jump" from an abstract idea to its physical form?

Zero and One are abstract concepts. They are not real. They don't exist. They are neither material nor physical objects. They only exist in the mind by assumption. Mathematically, both words are called numerals by definition. When Zero is represented with the symbol 0 and One with 1, technically, the words become numbers by association. Numbers are the assumed physical representations of abstract numerals. By symbolic representation, both digits now exist materially outside the mind - the physical world; the world outside of ourselves, the inherent world that exists a long time independently before the mind. This type of association or representation is part of the Label System.

If the abstract idea of Zero & One can be materially created by definition, association, assumption, and representation, does this mean that they are now real, really physically real? If we write 0 and 1 on a paper, does this mean they are now materially or physically real? Does this mean they exist physically now? Are the written numbers proof of their existence? If the idea of 0 and 1 becomes materially 0 and 1 by paper, how can we then validate the paper evidence to be true, valid, real, or even false? Are the numbers real objects now, living in existence, or still abstract, imaginary, or imagined?

A Reality Test, dubbed the SCQRE, was developed by Lawsin as a tool to validate the actual realization of ideas' abstractness to material physicalness. SCQRE, pronounced SCORE, is an acronym that stands for Sensory, Codexation, Quality, Reason, and Equipment. Sensory means the personal experiences detected by the senses: sight, smell, touch, taste, or hearing. Codexation is a root determinant that connects the inner mind and the outer world. Quality entails the descriptions, attributes, properties, or characteristics of the subject. The reason abstract reasons involve equipment abstract reasons The equipment involves mathematical accuracy and the right judgment through logic. The equipment provides measurements, detections, and evidence-based analysis. These five basic Indicators of Reality are collectively tested to establish the physical existence of abstractness and the abstract existence of physicalness.

To determine if the numbers 0 and 1 are physically real. let us use the SCQRE test:

By Reason: if a=0 and b=1, then a+b=1, a true statement
By Quality: zero is round while one is straight, true descriptions
By Senses: they can be seen but can't be tasted, touched, or smelled.
By Equipment: both have no mass, or density and are not affected by gravity.
By Codexation: both are mental constructs that can't be found outside the physical world.

From the results above, the numbers 0 and 1 are conclusively still abstract, imaginary, and imagined. They are not real because both numbers failed to meet ALL the essential criteria of SCORE. Their physical existence is not real because they can't be proven by detection, codexation, or sensation. They are simply representations that have no physical or material inherent identification in the outside world. They might be true inside the mind, but they are not real outside the mind. In principle, Any idea that comes from inside the mind can be true but cannot be real unless the idea outside the mind is physically associated with an object inherited from Mother Nature. This proposition is known as The Second Principle of Codexation. 

According to Lawsin, Nature is the source of early information. Without Nature, the early minds of the very first humans would be empty of information. Ideas would not be thought of. Ideas would not be formed. Ideas would not exist in the minds of our stone-age ancestors. However, when our primitive parents started interacting with their environment; gradually they accumulated information, eventually learned to use them, and evidently discovered new ideas. This shows that Information originates from nature and flows from nature to the mind, from objects to ideas (emphasis: from objects to ideas), and from physicalness to abstractness. This concept is known as The One Way Principle Of Codexation The Idea only becomes Real, when and only when the idea originates first from the natural world - The First Law of Codexation.

The idea of fruit is real when the physical fruit existed first before the idea. The idea of an animal is real when the actual animal came first before the idea. The idea inside the mind is real when the idea is the result of an object found outside the mind. The idea of an apple could not be conceptualized without the presence of a physical apple first. The idea of hot and cold could not be perceived without experiencing the sensations first. The concept of music could not be hummed and played without hearing music first from the outside world. Objects must exist first before ideas can be conceptualized. Without Nature, the brain cannot form ideas. Ideas are conceptualized because objects are materially created first. This is known as The Third Principle of Codexation.

The nature and reality of zero and one, and in general all mathematical entities, is a topic that has been debated by philosophers and mathematicians for centuries. However, there is no definitive or universally accepted answer of their existence.

Some of the common views and arguments that have been proposed by different thinkers which maybe you will find useful or enlightening are discussed below:

One view is called Platonism, which holds that mathematical entities, such as zero and one, are abstract objects that exist independently of the physical world and the human mind. They are eternal, unchanging, and perfect, and they can be discovered by reason and intuition. According to this view, zero and one are real, really real, even if they are not material or physical. Writing 0 and 1 on a paper does not create them, but only represents them. The paper evidence is not a proof of their existence, but only a symbol of their essence12

Another view is called Nominalism, which holds that mathematical entities, such as zero and one, are not objects at all, but only names or words that we use to communicate and manipulate ideas. They are dependent on the physical world and the human mind, and they have no existence or meaning outside of them. According to this view, zero and one are not real, really real, but only abstract, imaginary, or imagined. Writing 0 and 1 on a paper does not represent them, but only creates them. The paper evidence is not a symbol of their essence, but only a convention of our language34

A third view is called Structuralism, which holds that mathematical entities, such as zero and one, are not objects in themselves, but only positions or roles in a structure or system. They are defined by their relations and properties within the structure, and they have no identity or essence outside of it. According to this view, zero and one are real, but not really real, in the sense that they are not independent or intrinsic, but only relative or extrinsic. Writing 0 and 1 on a paper does not create or represent them, but only illustrates them. The paper evidence is not a proof or a symbol of their existence, but only a model or a diagram of their structure5

These are some of the main philosophical views on the nature and reality of mathematical entities. There are also other views, such as Logicism, Formalism, Intuitionism, Fictionalism, and Empiricism, that have different perspectives and implications. You can learn more about them from these web search results that I found:

Philosophy of Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

What is the nature of mathematical entities? | Philosophy Stack Exchange

The Nature of Mathematics - University of Oxford

If an object has to exist first before the idea is born, how come in physics, in particular the Mirror Equation model, the natural pixels (dots of information), which comprise physical objects, when projected through a pinhole, become non-physical subjects on the wall? Could it be the physical world outside of the mind is as well abstract just like the world inside the mind? If so, does this mean that objects and ideas are nothing but the same? Abstracts and Physicals are alike? Is Everything Nothing and Nothing is Everything? Is Life a Pixel after all? Is Reality an Illusion?

These mind-boggling concepts are in the book Originemology. The author loves to challenge the current old belief systems in science, philosophy, and religion intending to replace them with fresh new insights for the simple purpose of making the world a better place. Some fascinating points covered in the book are listed below:

The Lawsinium Paradigms:

1. The Simplified Theory of Consciousness
2. The Caveman in the Box Trilogy
3. The Guesswork Predicament
4. The Birthday Conundrum
5. The Software Illusion
6. The Illusion of Reality
7. The Frame of Reference Maxim
8. The Lawsinium Cat
9. The Creator Argument
10. The Scriptional Jump

The Lawsinium Paradigms are a series of studies that take you to understand better the real meaning of life, Nature's secrets of Reality, the Universe's algorithm, and the Mind's Parapraxis. They are mental exercises that will change your perspectives about who we are, why we are here, and what we should do as a species.

"Information flows from Nature to Mind, from physicals to abstracts, 

and not the other way around." ~ Joey Lawsin

Creation by Laws:

A Journal of a Creative Mind;

(ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).

About the Author :

Joey Lawsin is the author of the new school of thought "Originemology". He is a revisionist who wants to change the world by rewriting the textbooks with new concepts that debunk the old scientific, theological, and philosophical ideas of antiquity. He published a book in Physics, created a conscious machine known as Biotronics, and discovered "The Codexation Dilemma". The article above is an excerpt from his book "Evolution of Creation".

Disclaimer: The articles on this site are intended for a balanced education. Since it is constantly edited, updated, and improved, therefore I recommend you check back regularly for new items. If you want to use anything here for scholarly discussion, please inform the author by email or cite the author's name or source: A Journal of a Creative Mind, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.
# Codexation, #Codexation Dilemma, # Transcodification, #Originemology, #SCQRE

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

The Circumstantial Standards

First drafted 1988 published 2000 revised 2014
by Joey Lawsin

Circumstantial Standards, also known as the Belief System Paradox,  is a concept that asserts that ideas are all nothing but circumstantial, assumptions, or guesswork. Humans' language system, social system, mathematical system, the money system, calendar system, and all other systems created by mankind can be modified, replaced, or interchanged through the Power of the Standard. The Standard is the Rules of the Land which are generally agreed upon through the power of the Majority. However, the Standard usually changes and is sometimes even forgotten over time when new things are discovered. The old standard dies and the new one thrives. The come-and-go of ideas just shows that they are circumstantial. They are assumptions. They are guesswork. They are circumstantially relative. They are all just in our heads.

Examples of Circumstantial Relativity are:

1) The Guesswork Predicament: Have you ever asked yourself why there are 26 letters in the alphabet instead of 10 or 50? Why do we use 10 numbers instead of 2 or 100? Moreover, if we reduce the alphabet to 13 letters and remove all its vowels; reduce the counting system to 8, 4, or 2, or expand it to 16 numbers, do you think the world will be different today? Do you think the value of the gravitational constant will be different as well? Do you think the sum of all the angles in a triangle will still be 180? What if a standard ruler, which has 16 line marks equally spaced, is modified by removing a line or more, will our way of measuring be still the same? What if vowels are removed and only 10 letters are in the alphabet, do you think people can still communicate with each other? If every culture in the world speaks different languages, then the fruit apple can be named in 101 different ways. The number systems of the Inca, Mayan, Egyptian, Greek, and Babylonian were individually different from one another. The mere fact that the ancient world invented different numerical systems provides proof that ideas show uncertainties, suppositions, and assumptions. The mere fact that various names can be used to name an object provides proof that names can be replaced. The mere fact that ideas are circumstantial, therefore, they are all Guesswork!

2) The Birthday Riddle: What if you were born in California and today is your Birthday, how many times are you actually celebrating your birthday in a year? You might not have realized this, but if you are in Australia in spirit today, your birthday actually has already passed by last night. And if you are in Alaska today, your birthday has not come yet. More amazingly, if you are now physically present in Australia today, do you think your birthday is just coming or it has passed already? And another mind-boggling question: how old will you be now today? What will be your age if you live in Australia or Alaska today? What about if you are on Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn today? In addition, there are many kinds of calendars, which one do you use as a basis for your birth date? The mere fact that your birthday is circumstantial, therefore, is all but guesswork.

3) The Identity Crisis: Webster defines an apple as a round fruit with white flesh and red, yellow, or green skin. However, why did webster(people) use the word apple as a name for this fruit? Why didn't webster use another label like banana or orange or any other words like joey or zero to describe the fruit? If webster defines the word orange instead as a round fruit with white flesh and red, yellow, or green skin, can we call now an apple ... orange? if webster uses the same definition as a banana, can we call now an apple a banana? If webster interchanges all the definitions of every fruit and every word in the dictionary, do you think the world of vocabulary will change? The examples just show that all things humans do are all based on assumptions. These assumptions are accepted to be true technically by definition, by preference, by association, and by the majority.

The idea of an apple is an abstract concept. However, when the idea is associated with a physical apple, the idea becomes real. Does this mean ideas only become real if and only if they are physically associated with a solid object? Does this mean the presence of a material apple validates concrete proof that the apple is real? Furthermore, why is the word apple used instead of the word orange or the letter A or the number 2 as the name for fruit? Why is the Yen used as the mode of payment in China rather than the Peso? Why is it the alphabet starts with the letter A and not with the letter K or the letter B? Why are odd and even numbers in our counting system? Why not just even numbers and forget the odds? Why do we use money? Why is it your name is your name and not my name? The phrase "I Love You" is spoken differently by various races around the world. Among the 6000 translations, which one is the correct one? if you were born in Korea, do you think you will be a catholic, Christian, Jew, or Muslim? The answers you have to these questions depend on your race, your culture, your education, your belief, and your personality. Thus, again, your ideas are circumstantial. They are guesswork!

We know that Ideas can be represented by physical objects. If an idea can't be represented with a material object, then the idea falls as a Belief. An apple is real because we have a physical fruit that represents an apple. But this representation in the form of a name or label is just merely a representation. A physical apple can be named orange or labeled as a dog, a tree, or any word for this matter. As long as the word is defined properly and accepted unanimously by society, then the word becomes real. It becomes the truth. The illustration just shows that everything we believe can be altered depending on how we define things, how we associate things with objects, and how we accept the standards officially preferred by the majority. Even if we can prove something is real logically, physically, sensually, and technologically, reality still depends on assumptions by definition, preference, association, and acceptance by the majority. But again, reality by assumptions is nothing but guesswork!

So, how do we say something is really real or true? How do we solve this quandary if all ideas are guesswork? To answer this question, we need another derivative that will mediate between acceptability and unacceptability, real or unreal, true or untrue. The Codexation factor comes in handy.

Just like consciousness, a state of abstractness that can tell if something exists or not, Codexation is a state of the physicalities that transconverts or transcodifies the material world into abstract concepts or vice versa. In simple terms, it is a process that transforms abstract ideas into physical realities or vis-à-vis using the help of the outside material world.

Without the material world, everything would not exist. Without consciousness, nothing could exist. Abstract ideas and physical objects are the two main ingredients that identify if something is real or true. Reality can be proven by using the five basic strategic conscious reasoning elements dubbed as SCORE which stands for Sensory, Codexation, Quality, Reason, and Equipment. Logic or reason entails mathematical accuracy and the right judgment. Quality entails descriptions, attributes, or characteristics. Sensory requires personal experiences detected by the senses: sight, smell, touch, taste, or hearing. The equipment provides measurements and detections. Codexation transforms the realization of abstraction to physicality or vis-à-vis. Without all these five SCORE elements bundled in one, one's existence is unlikely to be true. To illustrate the reality test, let us examine if an apple really exists.
By Reason: one apple and one orange are equal to 1 apple and 1 orange.
By Quality: an apple can be described by color, size, or by its qualities.
By Senses: an apple can be eaten, touched, sniffed, seen, and heard by our biological sensors (mouth, skin, nose, eyes, and ears respectively).
By Equipment: an apple's mass can be determined by a weighing scale or its volume and density by a cylinder.
By Codexation: the idea of an apple can be transcodified or codexated with a concrete inherent object and the material apple can be transconverted with a natural abstract idea.

From the above inference, we see that the apple is real because it can be proven by examining it logically, physically, sensory, technologically, and by codexation. The fruit is real. It exists. However, its name is nothing but a circumstantial code, a tag, or a label. It is all but an assumption; guesswork.

4) The Science Quandary:
There are two kinds of evidence: One is the physical solid concrete "artifacts" that don't change. The other is the scientific results which are usually based on data analysis, formula manipulation, and quasi-experiments. The evidence provided by the latter changes every now and then depending on the variables, parameters, and environment. For example, I can determine the height of a building by simply dropping a coin. I can do this by borrowing the formula, data, and experiments provided by science and coming up with one measurement. However, if  I and the building are on the moon, in Jupiter, or inside a black hole, I will have then four different varying measurements. Thus the four scientific results are but circumstantial evidence. The question now is, among the four measurements, which one is the correct measurement, the true answer, or the acceptable evidence? You be the judge!

 5) The Belief System:

Information can be self-acquired by natural objects both living and non-living things. It can be self-acquired by how one interacts with one's surroundings. Like in the cellular level, the information acquired by an egg cell is totally different from the information acquired by a sperm cell since the egg cell lives in an environment totally different from the environment of the sperm cell. Each one carries different information. When the two unite, the information they carry is combined together and forms a totally new individual with new information.

Your religion is the same as with the cells. It comes into existence depending on the environment where you live or the country where you were born. If you are born in India, most probably your religious belief would be Hinduism. If you are from China, it would be Buddhism. If you are from Indonesia, it would be Muslim. If you are from Rome, it would be Catholicism. And if you are from another part of the world, it could be Christianism, Protestantism, and even Agnosticism. Whatever it is, your religion is relatively circumstantial.

"Geometry is Nature's Intention; Physics is Humans' Interpretation". ~ Joey Lawsin

Disclaimer: The articles on this site are intended for a balanced education. Since it is constantly edited, updated, and improved, therefore I recommend that you check back regularly for these new items. If you want to use anything here for the purpose of scholarly discussion, please inform the author by email or cite the author's name or source as follows: A Journal of a Creative Mind, Joey Lawsin, 1988, USA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------