Those are not facts though, those are opinions. They are based on a Newtonian view of the universe, and they really don't gel at all well with Quantum mechanics.
Newton thought that if you could measure everything well enough you could wind the universe forward for ever, he called it the Clockwork Universe. However, we now know that at the lowest level, the universe is 'fuzzy' and probabilistic, so there is no clockwork at the heart of the universe.
B.
Well, no. Baruch Spinoza was the jewish philosopher from Amsterdam and one of the most hated thinkers in european history, equally hated by both jews and christians, both protestants and catholics - this very meek and mild man was for more than a hundred years more hated than the devil. Newton, mind you, was in many respects a very,very,very ordinary anglican christian and newtonian physics was preached in the big churches in London in the early 18th century. Newton described a universe constructed by the good Lord allmighty and so perfectly well understood by the good Lords favourite matematician, the equally good sir Isaac.
Sir Isaac read his Bible like a good fundamentalist christian should, doing years of numerological work to figure out the correct date of the Last Judgement and the second coming of Christ. Newton spent more time on biblical numerology than on what WE consider his scientific work.
Spinoza on the other hand published his
Tractatus Theologico-Politicus in the early 1670s, which was and is one of the earliest and most brilliant thought thru critical readings of the bible; it is correct to say, that Spinoza was one of the true pioneers in historical criticism. Of course, this was one of the many things that made him oh-so-hated.
But of course Spinoza's greatest and most important philosophical work was his posthumously published
Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata. I many ways you can say, Spinoza's Ethics is what every grandiose work of metaphysical philosophy is - a methodical and complete playing through of all the philosophers metaphysical concepts. He gives us his total conceptual image of being, the universe and man - just as Descartes gave his conceptual image, Hobbes his, Leibniz his, and so on.
There are no neutral "facts" to decide which conceptual image is correct - Spinoza, or Newton or Leibniz or anybody else.
Or please tell me what kind of "facts" could decide whether the true God was Newtons Creator-God, who created the world and nature "in the beginning" governd by the Laws of Nature expressing Gods will;
or if the true God was Spinoza's
Deus sive Natura, God-or-Nature.