Science has the ability to address existence of god

BTW, I have decided to change the subject in question regarding observations.1. Observations Mathematical objects called wave-functions have been confirmed experimentally to exist and are more than just useful fictions. This means that independent ideas do exist objectively. More importantly, these Platonic objects have not only been shown to be real but non-physical. Please focus on reading this source first: https://www.newscientist.com... Then, please read another source that briefly explains how the wave-function is real but non-physical and explains how this claim can be confirmed through a different approach [7]. This involves experiments that show instances of counterfactual quantum communication. Then, read this source which provides confirmation for that claim from much more recent experiments where they show these instances [8]. [7] https://arxiv.org... [8] https://phys.org... BTW, what I showed above was also suppose to be an explanation for why the phenomena called "quantum fluctuations" does NOT actually emerge from absolutely nothing but from an universal wave-function. 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".https://www.newscientist.com... As the researcher who conducted the experiment concluded: “There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a [physical] system has [an independent] reality,” Here is another experiment showing proof from the "quantum erasure with casually disconnected choice" experiment that space-time emerges from information: "No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether". https://arxiv.org... If the sources are too technical for everyone to accept my argument and evidence, here is the consensus view on this subject to support the claims. A 2013 poll showed that most quantum physicists believe that the observer plays a fundamental role in the practical application of mathematical formulas and they believe these formulas ontologically exist in a objective way. Just read question 9 and 10: https://archive.org...; 2. Why is there something rather than nothing?3. The God Hypothesis According to the bible, God created us in his image. More importantly, John 1:1-3 says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. The phrase "the Word" means "the Logos" in Greek and "Logic" in English. Logic comes in many forms, such as math and semantics. In addition, John 1:1 is in parallel with Genesis 1:1. If the God hypothesis is true, then we should find certain aspects of the universe that exemplify a mind who is a personal, eternal, necessary with unlimited power, knowledge, and presence. 4. PredictionsIf the God hypothesis is false, then there is a conceivable world or universe where God does not have to exist or is not necessary to explain it. Therefore, if a physicist crafts a model of a past-eternal universe and empirically tests and confirms it, then this would falsify my hypothesis. The only past-eternal model I know that would potentially do this is the Carrol-Chen model Sean Carrol pioneers where they propose a reversal of the Arrow of time, as you pointed out before. Their model not only attempts to violate the assumptions of the BGV or Wall theorems, but they propose materialistic mechanisms for how baby universes are created going backwards in time. Moreover, if we ever discovered evidence showing that the cosmological constant varied during the universe's expansion, then it would damage my hypothesis.5. Devise an experimentA. Confirmation of Sean Carrol's past-eternal universe model.B. The Planck satellite are the experiments that should reveal any variations among the constants. To do so would make it pseudo-science, as science can only explain natural phenomena. Science most certainly does not have anything to say on the existence of supernatural entities and I do deem a god as being supernatural. The problem with this objection by Con is that it presupposes materialism is fundamental but as I showed above realism/materialism has been disproven because Idealism has been proven. For example, Realism is the view point that external things (I.e. space, time, matter ,energy) are real and exist independently of mind. Materialism as opposed to idealism is that it is material things, , that shape our ideas and ideologies. This means that scientific realism is essentially materialism, but realism encompasses many more"ideas than materialism. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are pursued in accordance with those ideas. Thus, the word " natural " does not have meaningful significance in this debate. The natural vs. supernatural dichotomy is a hallmark of substance dualism, but idealism where classical space time emerges from the mental world and only exists as a mental construct. In other words, our reality is still real (not simulated) but only because our minds or information makes it real. Furthermore, there is a reason why you will find no credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal on whether or not a deity exists and that reason is that science does not offer any stance on the existence of a god.As Con has alluded to, this debate is not about scientific proving God but whether science can address the God question at all. So I don't understand why he is requiring me to do both with this example that mainly involves scientific theories NOT scientific hypothesizes, which is the beginning stage. So we would not expect it to be in a scientific journal since its a new hypothesize that has never been proposed as being "scientific" .