> Obviously not scientific (until now, haven‘t even read the article yet of course)… It's still not either scientific or science, any more so than anything you

> Obviously not scientific (until now, haven‘t even read the article yet of course)… It's still not either scientific or science, any more so than anything you've written. It's just conjecture. There is no new evidence in the paper. It is as "scientific" as a plausible sci-fi story. > If there is a god, it must be a god to the universe. Why would you assume this? Why does a god need to be an omnipotent controller of the entire universe? For the vast majority of human history, most humans were polytheistic (and, like Hindus, they still are) or henotheistic. Monotheism and an omnipotent "one true God" are pretty new concepts.