The way I understand Spinoza is that he declared God indeed as true, but only as an abstraction. That means one can declare God the same as Nature, the Balance, or the same as Energy. But to declare God in specifics (such as calling God the Lord) would fall outside the realm of possibilities.

As soon as one starts out with science, one has opened up a dictionary that contains scientific words only. I think you did a good job making that clear. The same goes for the religious positions; they are all found in the religion dictionary.

To discover where both say the same thing, translators are needed, and while philosophers are good at translations, they may not always be good at translating religion into science and vice versa. They are better in translating everything into philosophy. That said, you are doing an interesting job.

--

I have been involved for many years now in a struggle to show scientists that this peculiar mathematical evidence I found is worthy investigating:

All mathematical systems contain a fundamental and functional zero. To say it to make you pay notice: zero is a whole number.

I do not know if you see it right away, but having a functional zero means that we live in a result. Matter is a result, and the (remnants of the) original should still be around then, too. In the model I created, it is floating outwardly away with matter. As such, the original is not intact anymore either.

Thanks for your article. I am going to read it again.

Here is an article of mine with a fundamental God question:

https://fred-rick.medium.com/what-god-used-to-create-creation-8f4e2c1e85e9