//God is the original mind and first Uncaused cause.//
Let's leave that unsubstantiated assertion on one side, and deal with this clearly untrue statement:
//Nothing happens in creation without information. //
Stars form, consume hydrogen and die.
This process has continued for billions of years with no 'information' about the how or why it happened.
Futhermore, this planet formed as a result of gravitational aggregation of smaller planetismals. No information or causation needed for that; just gravity.
Life – including human life – evolved on this pile of rock orbiting a star. Eventually each one of us was conceived, born and many died, with no need for information, and no need for an abstract creator.
Theland is seeking to argue points of faith in a style that is reminiscent of logic and rationality, but chooses not to follow any rational method. Theland moves from an assertion at the top of the post, seeking counter examples, but ignores the counter examples, and then makes further assertions which are clearly irrational.
There's nothing wrong with irrationality. However, when those of us who try to think rationally, present rational arguments, and see then rejected or ignored, with no sensible discussion or debate, then we know our interlocutors are irrational.
Like many, I realised a long time ago that engaging in any kind of debate with the irrational is fruitless at best and in every case, a complete waste of time and energy.
The curious thing is that Theland raises some important and interesting subjects for discussion. It's just unfortunate that the opportunities for considered debate are squandered in irrational assertions.
This appears to be the experience of many of us who occasionally engage the irrational in reasoned debate