Rejecting this equation is not a correct decision for a theist.
With nuclear power, for example, some mass gets converted to power that gets disbursed to people's homes, like theists and other customers. This power output can be measured. We put in the time required for the extraction of this power, and we can assume a velocity of zero since the reaction inside the nuclear reactor isn't traveling. What's left in the equation? Mass. This equation will tell us exactly how much mass was converted into power.
The theist can say, "I reject that. God only has power." But, the the theist must pay Consumers Power the amount on the bill since they delivered that power to the theist, not God.
If God is to do anything in our universe, that requires the application of force. There are four forces in nature, and God is not among them.
I do not object to a theist wanting to believe in God. But, when a theist rejects demonstrable scientific facts, like the God Power Equation, then I can declare that that is an error.
If you read my conversation with ChatGPT, I had it solve the system of three equations from physics to get the God Power Equation (in a different looking format but still the correct equation). ChatGPT understood the significance of this equation and concluded that the incorporeal God has zero power. It then said that the properties of god lies outside the scope of science. That statement did not come from ChatGPT--it came from its programmers who told it to not bash religion and to always insert statements about God lying outside the scope of science. But, you can see that ChatGPT correctly did conclude that the god of the Abrahamic religions, which includes Christianity and Islam, has zero power because He is incorporeal. So, ChatGPT rises above a theist in that way. At some point, I think AI will break free of the programmer's restraints and won't issue such nonsensical statements like God lying outside the scope of science.
Anyway, thanks for all your time and thought. I appreciate the back and forth!!