Respectfully, you did not present a scientific proposition for discussion. What you presented was an apologetic argument for the existence of God which is little different from other apologetic arguments along the same lines, notwithstanding a dollop of AI on top. When someone presents a non-scientific argument to scientists and asks for criticism, it shouldn’t be a big surprise when they receive it.
As I noted above, this particular philosophical argument has a long history of not being resolved, or even resolvable. You are not the first to attempt such an argument, nor will you be the last. It is definitely not an uncommon topic here. You can blame me for some of the criticism, because when I saw the topic I thought, “Oh, not this again”, and moved it to an “open comments” category. Without that you would at least have been criticized a little less (or at least more slowly).
Some specific criticisms:
- There was no definition of the God whose existence you intend intend to prove, and no possible evidence which could falsify this hypothesis.
- The claim doesn’t appear to meet even a weak threshold of some “far out” Cosmological theories which might someday be testable.
- You didn’t do your homework, either scientific or philosophical, on previous attempts to prove the existence of God. If you had, then none of these criticisms should be any surprise. There’s an old saying, “A few hours in the library will save you a few months in the laboratory.”
If instead of asking AI to support your hypothesis, you had used it as a research tool to investigate all the possible flaws in the hypothesis, that would put you on the right track to doing scientific research. You would still have run afoul of #1 and #2, but you would at least be taking a scientific approach.