That's a straightforwardly circular argument - creating your own definition, then using it as a proof.

Change is not presupposed by science. Various experiences/models of change are described by science, which is not the same thing at all.

There are block universe interpretations of cosmology which do not require change.

Yes I did, but the rest of the comment hangs on the initial claim I replied to.

If you redefine God to mean "fundamental assumptions of the universe", its existence becomes tautological. But that is not what most people mean (including the author of the article we're commenting on) when they say "God".