Our Reality Was Possibly Caused by a Being That Can Be Defined As God

I will start my rebuttal by seeing what happens if I accept all of your premises at face value. 1.) Local Realism is false and Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated this. 2.) Quantum Mechanics (weirdness) applies to everything. 3.) There are ways in which you can attempt to falsify this via showing Bells Inequality has not been violated. 4.) The universe is computable (i.e. information). 5.) The universe is likely a hologram, and we can test this. 6.) The information that makes up our universe is being processed by a mind. I don't really see an argument here. I see 6 independent premises. Now going into what you say about these, it looks like the only ones that are material to reaching your conclusion, that it is possible that a conscious being exists that is responsible for our universe, are 4, 5, and 6. The other 3 just are assertions about quantum theory being demonstrably true. So let's assume that the universe is a computable hologram that is processed by a mind. This would still require an explanation for that mind. The most reasonable explanation would seem to be that a sufficiently advanced race has made a self-aware computer program, not that this is all existing in some magic being's mind. We have evidence of computer programmers and it would be arrogant(and an argument from ignorance fallacy) to assert that a non magical computer programmer could never write a program that would fit our universe just because we can't understand how the programmer would do it. We have no evidence for minds existing without brains. Even a sentient computer program would have a brain of sorts, the computer. Your model would seem to require the possibility of a brainless mind. This then leads to the problem that if you are calling a sufficiently advanced natural being a God, then I do not see a point in even using that label. I mean technically your definition of god fits me since I am conscious, process platonic information, and have access to 4 dimensions. If you are willing to say that I am god, then yes gods exist, but maybe you meant to add more to your definition. If so, please explain why I am not god. Now, I have some serious objections to your premises. I will ignore 1, 2, and 3 for now because even though I am not on board with how you discussed these aspects of quantum mechanics, it is not important to your argument. All you need from those 3 is that quantum mechanics is backed by evidence and I agree with that general idea. 4) That the universe can be translated to computer information does not mean that it is actually just computer information. Everyone on the panel in the video you showed and even the guy postulating this theory pointed out that it is a way to describe the universe, not that we literally are a computer code. The article you posted about Adinkras is a long and confusing piece, but the author of that piece does not state that he thinks we literally are computer code, rather he states that if theoretical physicists wanted to see if we lived in a matrix, it would be reasonable to see if our universe could be described by computer code since that would be necessary for this matrix to exist. This evidence neither demonstrates that we live in a matrix nor that it is possible that we live in a matrix. 5) I do not see how any of your evidence posted would lead us to believe that everything is a hologram. Please explain the connection between the experiment to determine that black holes do not violate quantum physics and the idea that the universe is a hologram. Additionally, here is a direct quote from one of your sources. "Presently, there is no indication that our universe is a simulation, or is fundamentally digital" So far, I see zero evidence that our universe is a hologram, I just see something I have seen from other apologists where they bring up things that most people are completely unfamiliar with so that they can make it seem like science supports their ideas. Again, I see no proof that the universe is a hologram or that it is even possible that it is a hologram. Your own sources say that there is no evidence that it is possible. 6) The information is the universe is just its existence and the language is what we apply to it. Your comments in this section rely on the evidence of sections 4 and 5, but your evidence in 4 and 5 does not say what you seem to think it says, so this whole section is being held up on unsubstantiated premises and thus a wash. Additionally, we have evidence of "information" being generated without any requirement from a mind in the form of evolution. I have actually seen arguments like this before, and every time these kind of arguments are introduced to actual physicists, they are thoroughly dismantled. In every case I have seen where a physicist does this dismantling, it comes down to the person making the argument not really understanding the physics and the fact that these bits of science are being misconstrued or cherry picked to prove a point which is not how science works. Scientists follow evidence to its natural conclusion. They do not start with a conclusion and then try to find evidence/make evidence fit that conclusion. I am not trying to be rude here, just blunt. I am also not saying that you do not understand physics, but the evidence you presented does not support your premises or conclusion.