Science has the ability to address existence of god

Observations Con’s source of [7] in his round 2, is bafflingly ridiculous. It’s little wonder why that journal has no citations as it uses vague terminology and uses equations to stump lay people in this discussion. Whilst I cannot comment on the validity of the mathematics which are addressed in this journal, I can most certainly point out that this journal is far too nebulous. “Quantum weirdness?” Are you kidding me? This is what you think is acceptable in a scientific journal? Good lord. Putting aside the nebulous terminology that is in that journal, none of the relevant sources Con has given, even address the notion of quantum fluctuations. To the audience, please look at Con’s 3 relevant sources he gave in Round 2 of this heading, and see for yourself. Nowhere does the concept of “quantum fluctuations” nor that the concept that “quantum fluctuations” come from “nothing,” appear in any of the relevant 3 sources that Con has used. I suggest that Con actually gets into the habit of reading his sourced material for future reference. Even more embarrassing is that Con has quote-mined a blog-piece from new Scientist [1]. I’m going to quote Con verbatim: “ Now, I am going to provide evidence showing that only the "mind" (i.e. spaceless timeless immaterial cause) can potentially make the transition from wave function to quantum fluctuations: "....the values that you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the [observer's knowledge of the system]. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement". And now for the actual quote “In 1967, Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker proved mathematically that even for a single quantum object, where entanglement is not possible, the values that you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the context. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement.” As you can plainly see, that quote doesn’t have anything to do with a mind, and K-S theorem (which is what is being discussed) doesn’t have anything to do with a mind either. The original state-independent proof was experimenting with projectors [2], not minds. Con references [3], but has not explained why this journal is even relevant to his argument. God Hypothesis There’s not much to say on this one; Con is setting up what a god would be. Predictions Unfortunately, Con’s arguments are nothing more than a house built on sand (anyone gets that reference, I’ll raise my cup of tea to you). Anyways, Con has not given sufficient reasoning as to why his god can be explained by science. He’s brought up irrelevancies and then acted as if said irrelevancies is somehow linked to his argument. These irrelevancies are spattered all throughout Con’s round, and unfortunately this does not give me much to work with. I’m not a miracle worker. I can only work with what I’m given. And Con has not given me a lot to work with by any stretch of the imagination. Devise an experiment I have absolutely no idea how the Planck satellite is relevant here. What utter nonsense. Essentially, what Con has typed is nothing more than word salad. Regardless of what Con says, we can differentiate between the natural and the supernatural. Let’s take an extremely famous legal case [4]. This goes over why Intelligent design is pseudo-science, and whilst you are not proposing Intelligent Design, if we look at pg. 22 “The court concluded that creation science “is simply not science” because it depends upon “supernatural intervention,” which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable.” Your god is an example of a supernatural intervention. No matter how much word salad you throw my way, you cannot get around this fact Con. Furthermore, considering that science only deals with the explanation of natural phenomena, I’d say that this is very relevant to this debate. Conclusion If you’re going to state that science can address the notion of a god, it would be in the scientific literature, regardless of it being a hypothesis. Take [5] for example. Gravitons are hypothetical particles which aim to combine quantum mechanics with our current understandings of gravitation. To summarise, Con has not given sufficient reasoning as to why some of his arguments are even relevant to the conversation of whether a god can be addressed by science. There was a lot of word salad, a lot of referencing material with no context as to how material is related to conversation and he’s quote-mined once. Whilst I am appreciative of the fact that I’m not bashing my skull against a brick wall, as has been the case with previous debates of mine, I find Con’s arguments to be lack-luster. [1] https://www.newscientist.com... [2] https://arxiv.org... [3] https://arxiv.org... [4] https://ncse.com... [5] https://arxiv.org...