Here is one, note I will not respond further since I don’t want to argue about this article
This is wrong in so many ways, so let’s address a few.
Even if you could observe everything and find all patterns in the universe, you still need a philosophical framework to put it in context and to explain what’s inherently unobservable.
Even if everything is accounted for in the entire history, new, unexpected patterns could still emerge in the future.
There are countless ways how God/creator/&?# could make reality appear “physicalistic” to us while in fact it would not be so. See Maya.
There I presented three out of many reasons why science doesn’t disprove God. I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you are criticizing. Can you say what’s wrong about it?
Hmm, I don’t understand what you mean. Can you give some specific examples of my arguments that are inadequate?
Here is one, note I will not respond further since I don’t want to argue about this article
There I presented three out of many reasons why science doesn’t disprove God. I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you are criticizing. Can you say what’s wrong about it?