Science has the ability to address existence of god

In this round, I am just going to do what I said I was going to do in the last round.Since God is defined as a second space-time dimension or spaceless timeless being, there is actually an important aspect of the God hypothesis that has been pioneered by a scientist, named Itzhak Bars, in a peer-reviewed journal and confirmed.In fact, I actually contacted Itzhak Bars, the physicist who espouses the two time physics model, through email. Here is the exchange we had:Kenballer"Hello, my name is Ken. I just want to say that I am strong supporter and big fan of your 2T physics model, which includes a total of six dimensions. I have very important questions to ask you about your model. Would you say that your model is truly a theory of everything and another candidate among others like string theory that seeks to unify all the forces making it the final theory?If you say yes, then I am confused as to why it is not even on the table with theories of everything or spoke of among physicists in big speaking engagements or in the press. In fact, Many physicists even claim that string theory is the only candid despite having many problems. Lastly, has any of your predictions from your model been tested or confirmed yet?I will be honored if you can respond to my questions."Itzhak BarsDear Ken,"As you may be aware, nobody knows yet what the unified theory is in any approach. Ideas at the frontiers of knowledge rise and fall as they get replaced by better and more comprehensive concepts. The popularity of some ideas at any given time is tied to historical paths of development of new concepts. After undergoing a lot of birth pains, string theory enjoyed a period of popularity, but now this is in decline. I don't know a better theory of quantum gravity than string theory. Hence the decline is not because this good aspect of string theory has been replaced, but it is because of what it lacks. String or M theory is known in bits and pieces - there is no comprehensive formulation of the theory based on a unique principle. So fundamental principles and better concepts are lacking - this is why string theory is in disarray and unable to make reliable testable predictions.2T-physics is a new framework, beyond string theory, that does aim to reach the unifying theory through deeper and more fundamental symmetry principles that are absent in 1T-physics (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics in 3+1, string theory in 9+1 , M-theory in 10+1). The symmetry demands the extra two dimensions (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics in 4+2, string theory in 10+2 , M-theory in 11+2).The 2T-framework is still under development. At this stage 2T-physics does include successfully classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and particle physics. In particular the Standard Model and Gravity in 4+2 dimensions are in place and producing results. In that sense 2T-physics already covers all the physics we know at all levels of distance or energy. So it is a correct description of nature as we know it. 2T-physics has not yet dealt with gravity in the context of quantum mechanics. I am also a string theorist. The 2T version of string theory or M-theory is only partially developed. I refrain from speculation any further.In the meantime, it has been demonstrated that 2T-physics goes well beyond 1T-physics in unifying physical systems and making testable predictions that 1T-physics gives no clues about. This includes everyday classical and quantum physics (see examples of dualities and hidden symmetries in my papers and lectures), as well as the physics of the large and small systems, including some aspects of physics at frontiers such as M-theory. For example, in cosmology the 2T approach has produced new understanding of the behavior of the universe at the time of the big bang, including new phenomena, that no other approach managed to understand before. I have followers and collaborators among leading cosmologists that work with me on this topic. So 2T-physics is demonstrably a larger unifying framework, and I believe it is needed to find the truly unified theory.I do speak about 2T-physics in international conferences or workshops several times every year. There are no objections from my colleagues to 2T-physics (e.g. no such papers exist) and in private I get encouragement from leading physicists. There are followers, although I would have expected many more followers. But I have learned that for something that is a game changer this comes extremely slowly. I realized that this is a common phenomenon in every field, arts and music, science and technology, and of course lots of examples in physics (including string theory). One additional reason is the job opportunities for younger researchers at the frontiers of research in physics: jobs are too few and extremely competitive, so young physicists have the pressure to work on currently popular topics to increase their chances to get a job. Usually it is the younger generation that helps the development of newer aspects of a field while the older generation is stuck in its older concepts and sometimes even rejects what is about to become the new successful idea. This happened to relativity when Einstein was young, and Einstein did it to quantum mechanics. Fortunately there is no rejection of 2T-physics, while any resistance seems mainly due to lack of familiarity with the details which requires effort and investment. So, I don't worry about that, and continue to develop my ideas. I am confident that physics will be better off eventually when 2T-physics becomes the standard formalism to describe all phenomena."Itzhak Bars** Commentary **Let me be clear, I am NOT suggesting that Itzhak Bars is espousing a universal mind creating and controlling everything. However, Itzhak Bars' model is the closest at doing so because it confirms that there is a second space-time dimension that creates matter and energy from digital information processes. For example, here are quotes from those papers he spoke of that support my contentions:"Additional data related to the predictions, that provides information about the properties of the extra 1-space and extra 1-time dimensions, can be gathered by observers stuck in 3+1 dimensions. This is the probe for investigating indirectly the extra 1+1 dimensions which are neither small nor hidden." [2]"This suggests that, as a general phenomenon, there are hidden relations and hidden symmetries that conventional 1T-physics does not capture, implying the existence of a more unified formulation of physics that naturally supplies the hidden information. In fact, we show that 2T-physics in (d+2)-dimensions is the generator of these dualities in 1T-physics in d-dimensions by providing a holographic perspective that unifies all the dual 1T systems into one." (emphasis added)[3]Finally, the only difference between what Itzhak Bars espouses and myself is that he has not been made aware of consciousness being a valid alternative to string theory in regards to a quantum theory of gravity. As he alluded to in the email, this is why he thinks his model is incomplete because he did not include string theory, which is the only known or accepted quantum gravity theory among physicists. However, I contend that his model is complete and I explained why within the source I gave you before where I show that the mechanism is consciousness (i.e. Metaphysics). [2] Itzhak Bars, Gauge Symmetry in Phase Space, Consequences for Physics and Spacetime, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 5235-5252.[3] Ignacio J. Araya, Itzhak Bars. Generalized Dualities in 1T-Physics as Holographic Predictions from 2T-Physics. arXiv:1311.4205v2