Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

No. Not unsurprisingly, you don't understand either Berkeley or Derrida.

Criticism from analytic philosophers
Though Derrida addressed the American Philosophical Association on at least one occasion in 1988,[132] and was highly regarded by some contemporary philosophers like Richard Rorty, Alexander Nehamas,[133] and Stanley Cavell, his work has been regarded by other analytic philosophers, such as John Searle and Willard Van Orman Quine,[134] as pseudophilosophy or sophistry.

Some analytic philosophers have in fact claimed, since at least the 1980s, that Derrida's work is "not philosophy." One of the main arguments they gave was alleging that Derrida's influence had not been on US philosophy departments but on literature and other humanities disciplines.[88][93]

In his 1989 Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Richard Rorty argues that Derrida (especially in his book, The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, one section of which is an experiment in fiction) purposefully uses words that cannot be defined (e.g., différance), and uses previously definable words in contexts diverse enough to make understanding impossible, so that the reader will never be able to contextualize Derrida's literary self. Rorty, however, argues that this intentional obfuscation is philosophically grounded. In garbling his message Derrida is attempting to escape the naïve, positive metaphysical projects of his predecessors.[135]

Philosopher Sir Roger Scruton wrote in 2004, "He's difficult to summarise because it's nonsense. He argues that the meaning of a sign is never revealed in the sign but deferred indefinitely and that a sign only means something by virtue of its difference from something else. For Derrida, there is no such thing as meaning – it always eludes us and therefore anything goes."[136]

On Derrida's scholarship and writing style, Noam Chomsky wrote "I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood".[137]

Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt also criticized his work for misusing scientific terms and concepts in Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science (1994).[citation needed]

Three quarrels (or disputes) in particular went out of academic circles and received international mass media coverage: the 1972–88 quarrel with John Searle, the analytic philosophers' pressures on Cambridge University not to award Derrida an honorary degree, and a dispute with Richard Wolin and the NYRB.

I have nothing more to add.

Berkley did not do that even though his sbjective idealism lead many others to do so. I think he made less sense than Derrida and you. At least you are consistent.

The universe is made up of information. The information is very old. The information obviously tells a stories (stories like "squirrels make baby squirrels and they then take care of their young." and " Humans make baby humans and then teach their young to moral and create new things.")

Since, the stories are very old and, the universe is very large and, we are very small and young compared to the story, it is hard for us to determine the author. This hardship is no excuse for you and Derrida to bury your head in the sand of gobbldygook and make up your own authoress story even though the scope and age of the information tells a lot about the author.

Nothing emerges who's potential wasn't latent in the anntecendent conditions from which it emerged.

The information in the universe and the systems it operates under haven't changed in billions of years.

Quote:

Nothing emerges who's potential wasn't latent in the anntecendent conditions from which it emerged.

So what do you think was there to author the information we know as matter? What was hidden waitng to be revealed by the information we observe?

Then you can keep tracing back that spirit of imaginative creative possibilities to earlier humans and eventually find some primordial variation of it in animals, which in turn must have developed it from some earlier potential latent in pre-biological matter, etc.

I think you have to look at the essence of what authorship is in its primordial form.

That is an assumtion without a pattern. There is no evidence of an earlier potential latent in pre-biological matter. There isn’t any evidence that matter is intelligent even in biology. It looks like dualism is true.

An author in its most primordial form is someone who has an idea and the ability to communicate it isn’t it?

The most primordial author of a smartphone is the author who thought of the “new idea” isn’t it?

The potential for biological complexity to evolve in an aqueous environment is latent in the electromagnetic characteristics of water molecules and ionized compounds that dissolve in water.

No, human creativity evolved from earlier cognitive abilities, which in turn evolved from still earlier abilities, etc. Who knows what our current form of intelligence will evolve to become in the next few millennia, if we survive? Future intelligence may look back and wonder why we considered ourselves so intelligent, or they may look back in awe at how intelligent we were given what we had to work with at the time, i.e. the way we look back on the ancient societies and their incredible cultural and technological/architectural achievements

I disagree. The ingredients are there. The potential for biological complexity exists in the mind that can organize the ingredients.

I don't say the potential for a loaf of bread lies in my kitchen because I have a bag of flour and an oven.

The potential for bread exists because SOMEONE built an oven and SOMEONE raised a crop of wheat and SOMEONE built a flour mill. and I made the bread in my kitchen.

The same pattern is ALWAYS FOLLOWED when a complex system is being observed with complex results.

Some systems are just so old and have operated so effectively for a long period of time that it is assumed that they always existed.

I believe that is what you are assuming here. Am I wrong and if so why?

Why is it not better to assume that the pattern we observe today (things that are created always have a creator) followed through consistently into the ancient past?