Deterministischer, topologischer Gottesbeweis

Okay, Ladies and Gentlemen! I'm trying to explain the deterministic, topological proof of God, so like McGyver (tv series) did. Here you see the usual pythagorean theorem.
with square C, square A and Square B and the non-isosceles right triangle. All usual. I think this is mathematical knowledge of junior or senior high.
And now this video is going to be brilliant :-) Here we have the uncommon pythagorean theorem with the isosceles right triangle, which will be defined by the pythagorean theorem also.
You recognise the big square C and now the two smaller squares B and A with the same surface area. Okay, Babes: So far, so good!
Now I took the liberty to tinker a bit.
I have cut out the B square, which must now be added, and again the large C square, A square and the cut-out B square.
You can see the drawn diagonals here and again I took the liberty of using scissors to divide the B square at the diagonal.
This results in two isosceles right triangles.
The problem now is that for these two triangles you again need the Pythagorean theorem for their construction, but we don't have it. This means that the Pythagorean theorem is NOT defined over squares, but over 6 isosceles right triangles. This is a circular definition and anteceptio postremi. Anticipation of the result (last). The Definition of the pythagorean theorem ist humanly impossible. And you always need the Pythagorean theorem for each resulting triangle. Infinite regressus.
And the diagonal of the square is not a diagonal but the hypotenuse of the triangle!
You can also fold the square and then you get topologically two right-angled isosceles triangles, which are homeomorphic to the square.
The definition of the square results from this topological homeomorphism.
Why does no one recognize this? This is elementary school material! Besides, a computer program always limits creativity. You're never as free as when you just start designing on a sheet of paper.
The proof of God now it's simpel, but the way to it, requires an immense amount of abstraction, predicate and propositional – logic, argumentative theory and a lot of time and quiet!
If the Pythagorean theorem is the only way to calculate a right angle (if you reduce the area of the hypotenuse square, the angle is not a right angle), then the right angle of the square B must not be the prerequisite.
Wenn der Lehrsatz des Pythagoras die einzige Möglichkeit ist, einen rechten Winkel zu berechnen (verringerte man die Fläche des Hypotenusenquadrats ist der Winkel kein rechter), dann darf der rechte Winkel des Quadrats B nicht die Voraussetzung sein.
Q.e.d.