Response To https://twitter.com/pinkheretic/status/734774011352096768

I seem to have found reason to wonder if Adam and Eve human ancestry is the most logical Biblical interpretation even though it might be the most common. Genesis 1-2 seem equally reasonably interpreted as crediting Adam and Eve with either human ancestry or Israeli ancestry. However, Genesis 4 seems to most logically weigh in favor of Adam and Eve's Israeli ancestry with God directly creating other humans that the Bible might not report. To clarify, if Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only children and Cain killed Abel, multiple human creations by God seems to be the only way that seems to occur to me thus far for the other vengeful humans from which Cain seems to express the need to be protected in Genesis 4:14. Consequently, perhaps the Adam/Eve human ancestry issue is resolved.

Perhaps fortuitously, Genesis 4:14 seems to possibly also resolve the Noah "earth-wide flood" issue. To me, a reasonable flood theory seems to be that the phrase "the earth" as used in Genesis 6 might be intended to refer to the bounds of the generally-inhabited region, rather than the entire planet. To me, Genesis 4:14 seems to use the phrase in that way since it seems unlikely for Cain to fear being removed from planet Earth and being killed by anyone, unless Cain was afraid of being killed by extra-terrestrials while Cain was away from planet Earth. The more reasonable interpretation seems to be that Cain feared being deemed a murder-related social outcast, and possibly killed by others as such. Therefore, perhaps Noah's flood of "the earth" is suggested to have only taken place over a limited area, apparently rendering moot the apparent flood and animal procession issues of a planet-wide deluge.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/747522039746072576

To me, I seem to have demonstrated that logically sound reasoning, based upon science's findings, depicts the apparently Biblically-suggested attributes of infinite existence, consciousness, omniscience, omnipotence, and (I haven't yet presented) supreme benevolence for the role of source of all other existence simply using energy. The current point of the discussion does not even take into account the apparent final piece of the presentation's reasoning that seems to strongly suggest God as the point of reference at the beginning of the existential sequence of events that (a) actually has the attributes that the presented reasoning has (for analysis' sake) thus far attributed to energy and (b) effects the behavior of energy that seems to demonstrate the presented attributes.

To me, the rebuttal criticism (of a refusal to accept that the presentation assumes too much and pretends where it does not assume too much) seems similar to all but one submitted rebuttal in that it seems unaccompanied by supportive reasoning. The one exception that seems to come to mind seems clearly demonstrated via response reasoning to be flawed. To me, such unsupported criticism seems therefore ad hominem. Nonetheless, I respect the perspective.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/746381424199106560

My proposal does not seem to be that consciousness, as apparently recognized in existence of a certain minimum level of complexity is found in simple energy, but rather, as apparently described in an earlier post, that consciousness seems most logically suggested to consist of high-complexity-awareness formed of lower-complexity awareness of energies compressed and combined with other compressed energies.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/746380877119238144

My suggestion does not seem to be that an alphabet transmits the same complexity of information of a sonnet, but that "the members of an alphabet have all been given a small level of communicative power that, when 'concentrated' into words and then cooperatively combined with other such concentrations of members of an alphabet (words), the much greater communicative power of a sonnet seems recognized". The analogy's apparent parallel seems to be that, although the hypothesized low-complexity awareness of low-complexity energy might not equate to the apparent high-complexity awareness of high-complexity energy concentration combinations, the apparent ability of low-complexity energy to identify and respond to externality seems to most logically constitute awareness, albeit at an apparently low level of complexity.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745931546192977920

The comment's apparent suggestion that God's existence precludes human self-determination seems false since, to me, the definition of self-determination seems to be the ability to intellectually determine which of multiple, achievable behaviors to pursue, and to me, humans seem generally considered to have that capability.

Re: potential punishment for non-compliance, to me, (a) this apparently Biblically proposed God/human relationship dynamic seems most logically suggested to limit rather than preclude human self-determination. Apparently, despite this apparent limitation, humans seem generally considered to enjoy the highest level of self-determination of all observed forms of existence. (b) Limitation of human self-determination does not seem suggested to be solely imposed by God in the form of punishment for non-compliance. The extent to which humans are not omnipotent seems reasonably suggested to limit human self-determination. (c) The statement's apparent depiction of the impact of proposed punishment by God (for non-compliance with God) upon self-determination does not seem to include the apparent potential harm to human self-determination of non-compliance with God (apparently substantiated by the Bible, science's findings and history), and God's apparent responsibility to protect reality.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745931087088590848

This analogy seems to also substantiate my point. However, my proposed analogy claim does not seem to be that an alphabet equates to a sonnet, but that the members of an alphabet have all been given a small level of communicative power such that, when "concentrated" into words and then cooperatively combined with other such concentrations of members of an alphabet (words), the much greater communicative power of a sonnet seems recognized. If the members of an alphabet have no individual communicative power, "concentrations" of the alphabet's members and combinations of such "concentrations" seem to also not have communicative power, apparently for example, in the case of an unrecognized alphabet.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745907917782683648

I seem to have quoted the text from the post in this thread to which I originally responded. The apparent image capture of the essay which I originally presented in this thread seems to me to specifically present proposal of science's apparent substantiation of God as infinitely-existing source of all else, one of apparently multiple, substantiated, foundational premises presented as proposed substantiation for God as the key to optimal human experience.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745891357068238848

Twitter seems to show my initial comment in this thread to be a response to @Prophecy_Geek's comment that "... #Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods ...", to which I seem to have responded by welcoming response to an essay proposing substantiation by science of the Bible's apparently-suggested existence of God, and of the apparent Biblically-proposed link between God's proposed existence and optimal human experience (the apparent main message of the Bible to which I seem to have been proposing that analysis proceed to), not of proposed substantiation of perceived Bible/science irreconcilabilities in general.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745795598029295616

If I might respectfully suggest, to me, your comments do not seem accurately described as having revealed flaws in the representation, but as having proposed a flaw of Bible/science irreconcilability that seems to have been falsified, and possibly proposed a flaw that the proposed substantiation of God's existence seems applicable to multiple schools of thought, an apparent observation that seems to support that proposed existence and its proposed substantiation thereof, rather than constitute a flaw therein. Apparently as a result, neither of the two proposed flaws seems to stand. Apparently, therefore, barring additional proposed flaws in the presentation thus far, analysis seems freed to move forward to other proposed substantiation.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745794177317875716

Re: [You completely ignored how your "method" would "seem" to "substantiate" other myths], to me, the comment was not ignored, but seemed to offer no value as a rebuttal since the extent to which the concept of a higher-than-human source/authority is common to multiple schools of thought does not seem logically considered a negative quality of said concept or a negative quality of proposed substantiation by science of said concept. Apparently, to the contrary, the apparently common existence of a concept within otherwise distinguishable schools of thought seems somewhat generally considered to logically render the concept more likely valid (although not necessarily valid) via that metric alone than their differing precepts. I seem to have therefore interpreted the comment as a likely instance of "thinking out loud" that did not necessitate response. However, since, to the contrary, you seem to be calling for response to a comment apparently presented within the context of a rebuttal position, yet, that seems to substantiate the rebutted position, I respectfully respond, "To me, the proposed substantiation does seem applicable to a higher-than-human source/authority proposal by otherwise distinguishable schools of thought".

Re: "What do you imagine is resolved?", (a) the apparent assertion that the Bible is not substantiated by science seems to have been falsified, and (b) the matter of other proposed Bible/science conflicts that do not seem germane to the Bible's apparent main message seems to have been de-prioritized, apparently, therefore, allowing analysis to move forward to the apparently more germane matter of substantiation by science of the Bible's apparent main message.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745750200216621056

If I might respectfully suggest, if I propose reconciled Biblical main message and science, and you counter by challenging Bible/science reconcilability, and I demonstrate the apparent evidentiary weakness of that counter by demonstrating reconciliation of multiple Biblical assertions apparently previously considered irreconcilable , and propose that (a) those reconciliations seem to logically render the remaining proposed conflicts reasonably considered at least potentially reconcilable, (b) the remaining conflicts seem relatively irrelevant to the apparent Biblical main message, (c) the apparent Biblical main message seems so much more important than those remaining proposed conflicts, (d) the apparent Biblical main message seems solidly reconciled to science, and I propose moving analysis forward to the apparent Biblical main message, if you then repeat the apparently resolved counter of challenged Bible/science reconcilability, the repeated, apparently reasonably resolved counter might be the cause of a circular discussion.

Response To https://twitter.com/LindaBeatty/status/745618103132786688

(a) Aside from possible "poetic license" by prophets, God's statement seems a bit less abstract (Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 4:7). Perhaps to put criticism of God as malevolent into possibly more balanced perspective, consider the very next verse after Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 2:18.

(b) When humans say it, it seems either most likely logically false or intentionally harmful. When God says what God says (perhaps not exactly that phrase), it seems most likely logically true, apparently based at least upon the apparent need of limited, fallible human perspective for omniscient, supremely benevolent guidance, that need apparently substantiated by human science and history.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745726506245054465

I don't seem to claim to possess irrefutable reconciliation of every Biblical statement with science's findings. Validation of my presentation doesn't seem to require that because (a) I seem to have reconciled science with a subset of apparent Biblical assertion that seemed previously criticized as falsified by and irreconcilable with science's findings, (b) having done so seems to remove the "irrefutably irreconcilable" label from the remainder of Biblical assertion, (c) those Biblical "micro-assertions" do not seem to constitute the main focus of the Bible's apparent main message, but seem to constitute various points presented to convey the Bible's main message, and (d) I do seem to propose reconcilability of the Bible's main message with science's findings.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745523243138719744

The analogy seems to illustrate my point. Each surface area of the wool string seems reasonably suggested to have the capability to portray image. Relative image portrayal capacity seems a function of the size of the total image and the size of the wool string surface area being considered. Application of this analogy to the context being discussed seems to be that each "unit" of energy that participates in the possibly multiple-part eventualities apparently referred to as sentience, intelligence and will seems reasonably suggested to be capable of a less complex instance, the comparative complexity seeming reasonably suggested to be a function of the capacity of the more complex system and that of the energy unit being considered.

Response To https://twitter.com/jimmie_ard/status/745444764368023552

Re: Evil in unborn babies, I seem to recall suggestion that many behavioral tendencies seem genetically transferable.

I don't seem to recall specific mention of evil in animals, but two apparently contemporary concepts and one Bible verse seem to render that suggestion feasible. I seem to recall suggestion that increased aggressive human behavior seems associable with increased aggressive behavior in the interactive animal kingdom over time. In addition the animal kingdom seems considered largely carnivorous, but the Bible seems to suggest that all creatures were initially vegetarian. Perhaps the animal kingdom gradually developed aggressive behavior in reaction to experiences and other impact from aggressive human behavior.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745152850028703744

In light of the apparent limited and fallible nature of human perception via which emergence seems suggested to be identified, might "be recognized" be a more accurate description than "emerge"? In addition, from what, other than energy, might they "emerge" since the complexity to which the comment seems to credit such emergence seems to simply refer to concentrations of energy and cooperative combinations of concentrations of energy?

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/744672254190026752

https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/744672254190026752 The work of holding atoms together seems reasonably suggested to be common to both rocks and computers, but if everything is made of energy, then the atoms themselves seem to be concentrations of energy.

To me, the suggestion does not seem to be that energy is "traded in" by reality for a mass item with certain qualities once the energy reaches a certain concentration. The more self-consistent suggestion seems to be that the "mass item" is an abstraction of energy in concentrated and possibly cooperative mode, and that the mass item will eventually deconcentrate into that which is recognized as energy. But, to me, the mass item doesn't seem suggested to stopped being energy.

Apparently similarly, reality doesn't seem suggested to swap a human item for sufficient energy. Humans, therefore, seem suggested to simply be concentrated energy, and all human behavior is simply the behavior of concentrated, cooperative energy.

Of course, I could be wrong, and welcome substantiated suggestion to that effect.

Response To https://twitter.com/InfoIsGood/status/743403129539014656

To me, the comment seems to suggest a distinction between science's proposed convergence upon truth (the apparent narrowing of the scope of assertion) and religion's proposed divergence at truth (the apparent broadening of the scope of assertion). To me, this distinction seems to imply, but not necessarily indicate comparative quality of the two topics, but rather, a difference in their natures.

To me, science seems solely concerned with the subset of reality that (a) seems humanly observed and (b) seems to exhibit predictable patterns. I seem to recall suggestion by scientists that much exists within the remainder of reality that is not yet considered to be humanly and predictably observed.

To me, logically, science's apparent convergent nature potentially eliminating false assertion regarding humanly and predictably observed matters might yield less falsehood, but not necessarily more truth. If, for example, the truth of a hypothetical matter contains ten true concepts, and ten related concepts are perceived, but only four of those perceived ten are true, then six of the perceived concepts seem logically false. Even if all six false concepts are subsequently eliminated at some point, if the remaining undiscovered six true concepts exist outside of the scope of human, predictable observation, convergence seems achieved upon only partial relevant truth, the total truth seeming to remain out of science's reach, resulting in a possibly unrecognized false representation of reality.

Religion, defined as human understanding of the proposed God/human relationship, seems to include two factors that seem to place religion outside of the bounds of the apparent subset of reality apparently focused upon by science: (a) God, who does not seem humanly and predictably observed, and (b) relationship-related interaction, regarding which the number of relevant variables seems inconducive to predictable, human observation.

Relationship interaction assertion seems logically more likely to diverge at truth due to the apparently large number of potential values for the factors of (a) unique, human, relationship-relevant characteristics, and (b) circumstance. Apparently as a result, outcomes of a relationship interaction might vary among relationships and even among points in time within the same relationship, apparently due to changes in circumstance.

To me, the apparently divergent-at-truth nature of religion does not seem to warrant eliminating attempting to vet religious assertion. Perhaps to the contrary, to the extent that religion holds the key to optimal human experience that science can not produce, addressing religion seems a logically more pressing issue than addressing secular science.

To me, therefore, the line of qualitative distinction seems optimally drawn where either science or religion presents understanding that is false, incomplete, or not applicable within a particular context of focus, and does not seem optimally drawn categorically between religion and science. Each person seems personally responsible for drawing that person's line, whether by personally reviewing relevant information or by placing faith in another party and adopting that party's line of distinction.

The SIDP presents apparently overlooked information that seems relevant to the drawing of those lines, and apparently in turn, to the quality of individual and aggregate human experience that seems impacted by behavior undertaken based upon the drawing of those lines.

Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743106955695292416

Re: "The flood myth was written long before the buybull", to me, the comment "The myth Tale also suggested genocide was a good thing for humans" does not seem intended as an assessment of the account's historicity, but seems likely intended as a criticism of God's considering genocide a good thing for humans. My response seems to (a) attempt to place that criticism in its apparent context of Genesis 6:5, (b) compare that criticism to the apparent contradictory criticism of the extent to which God seems reasonably suggested to have left human evildoing and its resulting human suffering unchecked, and (c) pose the question of which criticism seems false. If the apparent response "The whole lot is false" is intended to suggest that both criticisms of God are false, I seem to agree, regardless of whether or not the flood account is historic.

Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743088297975648256

https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743088297975648256 I seem to attempt to phrase assertion conservatively to imply subjectivity to error as opposed to assumed irrefutable fact.

Re: "The myth Tale also suggested genocide was a good thing for humans", if this comment refers to Genesis 6's apparent flood account, I respectfully propose consideration of (a) the context apparently apparently described by Genesis 6:5, and (b) the apparent criticism of God's apparently-suggested "human experience management" for allowing "evildoing" and the suffering that results to go unchecked. Which of these apparent contradictory criticisms of God might you consider to be false?

Response To https://twitter.com/Tweeting_Reason/status/743073020042960896

To me, I seem to have stated my goal at the onset. To me, you seemed to have stated that the human experience has no intended purpose, and I seem to have responded that continuing along the proposed reasoning path might lead to a different conclusion (https://twitter.com/pbSIDP/status/742775991005794306). Since that point, my posts seem intended to review the apparently relevant factors to attempt to determine what, if any, conclusion they lead to. To me, so far, we seem to have progressed through several concepts to the issue of whether pain and pleasure have, from birth, the specific, primary, and humanly intrinsic role of incentivizing and dis-incentivizing specific behavior. To me, that seems the current state of the discussion.

Response To https://twitter.com/Tweeting_Reason/status/742823824224292866

I respectfully propose a clarification: to me, rather than simply being capable of being used for that purpose, from conception, the default role and purpose of pain and pleasure seems be to incentivize and dis-incentivize specific behavior. The extent to which experience might revise the pain/pleasure-to-behavior relationship seems to constitute another matter. Might you agree?

Response To https://twitter.com/ieswideopen/status/742822691866955776

The Laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass and Energy/Mass Equivalence seem to suggest that finitely-existing things aren't created or destroyed, but rather, are transformations of energy. If energy comprises everything else, then energy seems logically suggested to be the source of all other observed existence. Science does not seem to suggest an exception to this pattern.

In addition, apparently, if energy forms one finitely-existing thing, then transforms to form another finitely-existing thing, the energy's existence is constant before, during, between, and after the lifecycles of the finitely-existing things. If this series of transformations is considered in reverse-chronological order, the series seems most logically suggested to extend infinitely into the past, or in other words, the series seems to constitute infinite past existence. This seems to yield the infinitely-existing source of all other existence, which the Bible seems to also refer to as "God".

Response To http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html, comment tweetingreason June 14, 2016 at 11:04 AM.

Thank you for the comment "tweetingreason June 14, 2016 at 11:04 AM" on the SIDP website at http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html. If I might mention, perhaps we might continue review of your perspective before beginning to review the SIDP presentation. To me, the concepts apparently addressed by your perspective seem possibly fundamental to our conversation.

Response To https://twitter.com/Tweeting_Reason/status/742676805702799361

I'm not sure that God as a scientifically-verified theory is the goal. My understanding of general consensus seems to be that there are multiple aspects of apparently accepted reality that science is unable to verify and test, such as black holes. The proposed source of all reality, including apparently unscientifically verifiable reality such as black holes, seems reasonably suggested to exist beyond the current verification and testability of human perception, even when aided by humanly-developed technology.

Perhaps accordingly, the basis for the proposed substantiation is not a new proposed observation that needs to be scientifically vetted, but seems to be apparently overlooked, yet most logical implications of already scientifically vetted observations, perhaps similarly to the way that the Law Of Conservation Of Mass seems to be the most logical implication of the Law Of Conservation Of Energy and Mass/Energy Equivalence (E=mc2). To me, as many times as one tests the logic of their confluence, the Law Of Conservation Of Mass seems to be the outcome. To me, the extent to which the Law Of Conservation Of Mass is also within the realm of scientific sensory verification seems to have lent it its own space in the scientific organon.

To me thus far, the SIDP presentation's proposed logical implications seem similarly, as readily, and as repeatedly tested with the same logically-derived results reached at each testing. If a reasoning flaw is identified or an equally likely or more likely logical outcome is identified and substantiated, then, perhaps, perhaps the proposal does not present the most logical implications of science's findings, otherwise, the proposal seems.

To me, the same seems appropriately suggested regarding the theory of evolution. To me, regardless of the number of fossils, fossil age calculations, pedigreed fossil and fossil age analysts, and fossil form similarities that are identified and proposed, the evolution of humans from single-celled organism seems incapable of being scientifically verified, since it seems appropriately categorized as a past event, and therefore beyond the scope of any scientific, observation-based test. The only aspect of the human evolution proposition that can be scientifically tested is the logical estimation processes via which the proposed conclusions have been drawn. To me, the logical estimation process that logically yields the Law Of Conservation Of Mass, and that yields the theory of evolution from otherwise inconclusive observation of physical evidence, seems to comprise the SIDP presentation. The apparent lack of a substantiated reasoning flaw in the SIDP presentation, or a stronger reasoning alternative seems to render the presentation not to have been debunked.

Response To https://twitter.com/CaptAtheism/status/742445750928343040

The comment seems to evoke the apparently age-old question of whether good or bad is normative. To me, systems' parts seem to typically work harmoniously together to achieve goals. To me, harmonious system operation seems generally considered good, and inharmonious system operation bad. To the extent that God is the infinitely-existent source of everything else, God seems reasonably described as the overarching system. Reality other than God seems reasonably described as an expression of God, and everything in reality seems to work harmoniously together except for apparently privileged, self-determination that replaces God as system authority. Accepting God as system authority, good seems simply defined as harmony with God, and evil seems to be disharmony with God. Apparently, therefore, harmony and its source and system authority, God, seem most logical described as good.

Response To https://twitter.com/FidemTurbare/status/742247311921709056

Upon what basis, if any, might Hindu thought suggest that multiple deities are called for? To me, the Bible and science seem to imply the infinitely-existing source of everything else. (a) might Hindu thought suggest such a source? (b) if so, might Hindu thought consider that source to be a multi-part point of reference, and (c) if so, why?

Response To https://twitter.com/MeckeringBoy/status/741990692596154373

Irrefutable evidence would seem to consist of asking God whether or not God had approved slavery or if humans had. To the extent that God's existence is not yet accepted, then surrounding context seems appropriately referenced for reasoned estimation. To me, that context seems to suggest that approval of slavery seems inconsistent with of (a) apparent lack of mention of slavery in Genesis 1-2 (God's apparently initial human experience context), (b) God's apparent guidance away from adverse social interaction in Genesis 4, and (c) God having just liberated the Hebrews from slavery. However, human disposition seems more likely than God's to have become acclimated to slavery and more likely to accept it if not on the receiving end of it.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/741888511880486914

I heard that food 2.5x world population needs currently exists. If so, to me, that seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God provided food for all. If humans misuse their apparently God-given privilege of the most advanced level of self-determination on Earth to replace God (as the human experience's primary administrator) with humans and establish an economic system that results in resource imbalances, who should logically be the focus of complaints, God or those who replaced reliance upon God with reliance upon humans for primary administration of the human experience?

Response To https://twitter.com/kimrg3/status/741692191920263168

To me, premise one of the Bible's apparent message seems to be that God exists. I seem to be able to demonstrate the attributes of God, as apparently described by the Bible, via science's findings and logical reasoning. Step one: might you agree that the Laws Of Conservation Of Energy and Mass (TLOCOE/TLOCOM) and Mass/Energy Equivalence (E=mc2) imply infinite past existence?

Response To https://twitter.com/calmAndRational/status/741663977189572608

FYI, I plan to attempt to falsify your statement. Would optimal human experience be achieved if a person who likes persistence in other people is persistent with someone who doesn't like persistence in other people?

Response To https://twitter.com/calmAndRational/status/741637122222915584

FYI, my hypothesis seems to be that, due to the limitations and fallibility of human perception, attempting to humanly define optimal human experience will lead to irreconcilable preferences. But perhaps, this line of questioning might demonstrate the apparent validity of that hypothesis. To resume, how does one identify the common good?

Response To https://twitter.com/TriAtheist/status/741252703087529984

To me, a humanly-developed moral standard seems incapable of consisting of anything more than preference, and, in social settings, of anything more than general consensus preference. To me, the main factor that seems to determine the propriety of such a humanly-established moral standard seems to be whether or not a more authoritative moral standard exists. That main factor seems to return the discussion to whether God exists as the establisher of reality's moral standard. To me, science's findings seem to substantiate the suggestion that God does.

Response To https://twitter.com/Atheist_Bot/status/740704659980046336

To me, the flood solution seems to have resulted from the extent to which human "free will" seems to potentially result in people not following God's directions, and as a result, imposing harm upon the human experience, and perhaps as well, other aspects of reality beyond the human experience. Apparently, following God's child-raising directions (the most fundamental tenet of which seeming to be to teach children to follow God's directions) seems reasonably suggested to increase the likelihood of children following God's directions and thereby contributing to optimal human experience, and perhaps as well, reality beyond the human experience, when compared to not following God's child-raising directions to teach children to follow God's directions.

Response To https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/740160461413326848

To clarify, my point seems to be that your question seems likely illogical in the apparently current, real-life context since it seems to seek methodology for disproving the existence of the apparently likely existent. Apparently, since humans are limited-perception and fallible-perception beings, that seems as close to absolute of a statement as humans can make. To me, if humans weren't limited-perception and fallible-perception beings, the statement might be "your question is illogical in the current, real-life context since it seeks methodology for disproving the existence of the existent". To me, the apparently human need for assertion disclaimers does not seem to invalidate the apparently objective reality to which human, disclaimed assertion is intended to refer. Apparently as a result, from perspective that considers God's existence to be objective reality, presentation of that perspective in the form of a hypothesis does not seem to negate the apparent illogic of attempting to disprove that hypothesis' apparently underlying objective reality.

Response To https://twitter.com/THISSBRAVA/status/740039018071642112

I seem to respect the perspective. To me, the suggestion that the basis for distinguishing between right and wrong is human common sense does not seem to delineate the distinction between right and wrong, but simply seems to suggest a human-based point of reference responsible for distinguishing between right and wrong. To me, however, deference to human common sense does not seem to resolve the issue, because the authoritative basis for distinguishing between those who do and those who don't have common sense does not yet seem identified.

Response To https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/739993058368884736

To me, an important point regarding the desire to disprove God's apparently Biblically-suggested and science-findings'-paralleled existence seems to be that, if God does exist, God's existence seems impossible to disprove. Apparently, as a result, to me, to the extent that God exists, and to the extent that I propose that God exists, and to the extent that you are posing to me the question of how to prove that my proposal of God's existence is wrong, your apparently posed question seems illogical.

Response To https://twitter.com/NotBabbling/status/739908978981883905

To me, Leviticus 25:44 and Deuteronomy 20:14 seem more likely a result of that which seems suggested to have occurred in Exodus 18 than that which seems suggested to have occurred in Genesis 1-2. Further, to me, one of the most egregious problems of human administration of the God/human relationship (apparently such as in Exodus 18) seems to be that the failings of humans seem potentially attributed to God, both by those being administrated as well as by observers, as 1 Samuel 8 seems to illustrate, perhaps causing those being administrated as well as observers to reject Proverbs 3:5, as 1 Samuel 8 seems to also illustrate.

Response To https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/739869992984838144

Re: "we can rule out the science you referred to as a reason you believe", to me, that assertion seems false. Although the apparent substantiation (by science's apparent findings) of my related perspective does not seem to have been my initial basis for accepting that perspective, nor be my primary basis for continuing to accept that perspective, the apparent substantiation seems to contribute to my confidence in that perspective.

Re: "So why do you believe", if I might respectfully mention, to me, discussion seems to have looped, this time, apparently beginning at https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/739584849925677056.

Response To https://twitter.com/illastr8/status/739868874968010753

To me, the apparent suggestion that cosmogony and higher-authority theories have universally been developed seems to suggest that human intellect might lean intuitively toward cosmogony, and toward association of a complex natural system with a more complex, aware source. That source/authority figure seems to constitute a unique point of reference, perhaps typically eliminating the apparently-suggested multiple choice issue with regard to "gods" that seems to be suggested by the preceding comment. To me, the only time that multiple choice of such sources seems to be intuitively introduced is when (a) multiple humans with differing conceptualizations of the source/authority figure might interpret those differences as indicating differing points of reference, or (b) a human conceptualizes a team sourcing/authority figure construct, in which case, outreach seems likely made to the group as a whole, or to the highest authority within the group. Apparently as a result, to me, a human seems reasonably expected to intuitively sense, without confusion, a single, aware, source/authority point of reference to reach out to. That said, to offer possibly contrasting/balancing perspective, to me, Genesis 1 does not seem irrefutably clear with regard to the quantitative nature of God.

Response To https://twitter.com/Atheist_Bot/status/739839410028564480

To me, a different apparently reasonable hypothesis seems to be that certain characteristics of an existing God such as name and form might be made up by the individual for the purpose of the individual's reference and that unique interaction between individual and such existing God might be perceived by individuals as such.

Response To https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/739837674085744641

To clarify, this stage of my presentation doesn't seem to yet propose the constant existence of God, but rather the apparent constancy of existence in reality.

Three distinct, yet apparently related findings of science seem to be The Law Of Conservation Of Energy (TLOCOE), Energy/Mass Equivalence (E=mc2), and The Law Of Conservation Of Mass (TLOCOM).

TLOCOE seems to suggest that, in a closed system, energy isn't created or destroyed, but is transformed from one form to another. As a result, the amount of energy in a closed system seems to remain constant.

A closed system seems to be a system that exchanges nothing of relevant significance with an external system. For example, apparently, a closed system of air would leak no air into or out of the system.

E=mc2 seems to suggest that mass is made up of energy.

TLOCOM seems to be the logical implication of TLOCOE and E=mc2, and seems to suggest that, in a closed systems, mass isn't created or destroyed, but the energy that comprises it changes form. Apparently, as a result, the amount of mass in a closed system remains constant.

To me, all of reality seems most logically considered to constitute a closed system, since, to the extent that "all of reality" refers to "all that exists", there seem to logically exist no external system with which to exchange anything.

As a result, "all of reality" seems to be comprised of at least energy that continues to exist between formations and transformations of mass. This continued existence seems reasonably suggested to constitute constant existence. Might you agree?

Response To https://twitter.com/The_Vagitarian/status/739605214177546241

Re: "only if you assume a god exists", apparently agreed. My comment presented the portion of my perspective that seems to support the premise "energy and god are not the same".

Re: "there is zero evidence in favor of the existence of a god or god-like being", what reasoning flaw might you perceive in the "Substantiation: God's Existence" essay section, and the "Substantiation: Key Attributes Of God" essay?

Response To https://twitter.com/The_Vagitarian/status/739601640601223169

If "our environment" refers to other of our species, this seems to assume that other of our species have developed the "be considerate" guideline. If we developed from non-sympathetic/empathetic life forms, what other of our species would we have observed practice sympathy and empathy?

Response To https://twitter.com/The_Vagitarian/status/739601139243450369

I seem to sense different usage of the phrase "social interest". Your usage seems to refer to the interest in interaction with that which is external to self. My usage seems to refer to interest in the well being of that which is external to self, contrasted with personal interest. My point seems to be that although interest in interaction seems innate, including vocalizing as a social communication system, interest in the well being of that which is external to self seems not to develop unless externally introduced, and seems to deteriorate unless externally reinforced.

Re: "We evolved empathy to survive as a species", many life forms seem reasonably suggested to survive without empathy. Upon what basis might you suggest that humans have needed empathy in order to survive as a species?

Response To https://twitter.com/The_Vagitarian/status/739600722832953345

Re: "energy and god are not the same", to me God seems reasonably suggested to be the point of reference that wields energy. Substantiation thereof seems to warrant its own discussion thread, however, one point a time. :)

Re "God is a figment of one's imagination", upon what basis might you suggest that to be the case?

Response To http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/response-to-httpsidpblogblogspotcompsid.html, comment Dean Esmay June 5, 2016 at 11:55 AM

I seem to have reached a few paragraphs in on "Sola Scriptura: In The Vanity Of Their Minds", when I seemed to sense such a great divide between (a) the God/human experience apparently depicted by that portion of the essay and (b) the God/human experience apparently depicted by Genesis 1-2.

To me, Genesis 1-2 seems intended to state, "Here is God's design for the human experience, where we were", including an apparently near-postscript in Genesis 2:25 that seems reasonably suggested to segue to Genesis 3's apparent statement, "Here's how we arrived at the adverse condition of the human experience where we are". To me, that initial human experience model consists of six concepts: God is in charge, enjoy, here's your and everything else's menu, "tend" to the garden, don't touch that tree, and here's your mate. To me, any God/human relationship concept beyond that seems reasonably considered a result of eventuality somewhat similar to Exodus 18, and that might have been initiated by other eventuality somewhat similar to Genesis 3.

Response To https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/739163261094875137

To me, science seems to suggest that reasoned planning and behavior is based upon perception of decision-critical conditions, and that human perception is limited and fallible. If decision-critical conditions exist outside of the scope of perception, or if perception is subject to error, reasoned behavior does not seem based upon the actual state of decision-critical conditions, but upon assumption of conditions outside the current scope of perception, and upon assumption of perceptual accuracy. To me, that assumption seems referred to as bestowing "faith", "trust", or "confidence", and seems to participate in all human reasoning.

Re: "How reliable is faith", to me, the issue does not seem to be how reliable faith is, but rather, how reliable the object of faith is. To me, the Bible, science's findings and history seem reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God is reliable and that humans are not reliable with regard to administration of the human experience, and perhaps especially, with regard to administration of the God/human relationship.

Response To https://twitter.com/AtheistEngineer/status/738490968161280000

However, perhaps similarly to math, "showing your work", when compared to solely presenting an answer, seems to involve more detail and accommodative resources apparently key to demonstrating the reasoning upon which an answer is based.

Response To https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738405515793977346

To me, appropriate faith does not seem to "close the door on doubt that one needs". To me, Bible, science and history seem to suggest that both faith and doubt seem important to the human experience in its apparently adverse condition. The key issue seems to be when, and in what, to have doubt and faith. To me, this discussion seems focused upon the basis for the suggestion that God is optimally the sole, logical focus of constant faith.

In addition, the concept of "looking out of one's comfortable box" seems to warrant clarification. Might you consider the phrase to refer to appropriate desire for growth? If so, to me, the Bible seems to suggest that God has always advocated human experience growth (Genesis 1:28-31). A key issue seems to be whether all human experience growth is appropriate. The debate seems focused upon the Bible's apparent suggestion that not all human experience growth is appropriate, that God is the ultimate determiner thereregarding, and that humans optimally have faith in God's real-time guidance (not human guidance purportedly on God's behalf) regarding experiential growth that is appropriate.

Response To https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738404594145976320

To me, science seems to suggest that as humans, the concept of faith is intrinsic to the human experience, since human perception seems scientifically considered both limited and fallible. Apparently therefore, in order to form any reasoned assertion, faith must be exercised in the complete reception of significantly relevant data, and in the correct interpretation of that perceived data. To me, science and history seem to suggest that said faith is often unfounded. Apparently, therefore, the phenomenon of faith does not seem logically suggested to constitute the premise flaw that your comment seems to suggest it does.

Perhaps more importantly, the Bible seems to demonstrate a pattern of provision of sufficient evidence upon which to base subsequent faith. That phenomenon also seems central to the human experience, since both education and any reasoned relationship seems to employ that pattern.

To further distinguish between the apparently Biblically-described contexts of faith, to me, the Bible seems to suggest that, the "when times get tough, have more faith" credo might be inappropriate where faith in any point of reference other than God is concerned, including humans, even with regard to human attempt to administrate the apparently Biblically-proposed God/human relationship.

I do not seem to be proposing faith in limited-and fallible-perception humans, but in an omniscient, supremely benevolent point of reference whose existence seems substantiated by science's findings. The outcomes seem logically suggested to be, respectively, undesirable and desirable.

Response To Response at https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738335734952787968.

To me, my comments do not seem to suggest the ignorance of those who trust in evidence. To clarify, my suggestion seems to present three of science's related findings that seem to substantiate God's apparently Biblically-suggested existence. Your response thereto seems to switch topics from the presented evidence to trends in religious perspectives of scientists. I seem to have respectfully followed the shift to demonstrate via reasoning that the suggested trend does not seem to logically detract from mine.

. Your most recent point seems to shift focus to the potential ignorance of those who trust in evidence. I seem to have responded to that shift via this clarification.

If I might respectfully suggest, however, I seem to have presented evidence, apparently consisting of science's findings and related reasoning.

Response To https://twitter.com/AtheistEngineer/status/738335688937119744

To me, two possible clarifications seem reasonably proposed: (a) the Bible does not seem to suggest that God's existence is "beyond the realm of nature", but that God is the infinitely-existent establisher of "nature". (b) the Bible seems to suggest that God's existence seems beyond the suggested humanly-perceived and understood subset of "nature". However, I seem to recall suggestion that many aspects of modern science were hypothesized before being perceived and subsequently accepted as "scientific fact". If so, lack of human perceptual verification or inclusion within the scientific organon does not seem to reasonably preclude the factuality of a premise. Apparently, therefore, "supernatural" as a label seems to offer no value to analysis of the apparently Biblically-proposed existence of God.

. The SIDP presentation seems to base its substantiation of God's apparently Biblically-suggested existence upon three apparent findings of science. What flaw in that reasoning might you perceive?

Response To https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738335345520050176

Assuming (a) "the same justification" refers to my presented substantiation for God's existence, (b) my presented substantiation for God's existence seems to focus upon apparent Bible and science reference to the source of all other reality, (c) I don't seem aware of unicorns being suggested to be the source of all other reality, the apparently reason-unsubstantiated rebuttal to which this post responds seems clearly false, and seems to illustrate the apparent benefit of reason-substantiated response. Might you be interested in presenting reason-substantiated response?

Response To https://twitter.com/Clergy211/status/738093883767193600

Assuming appropriate respect for differing perspective, and assuming that (a) "impeccable moral compass" means "infallible discernment of right and wrong", and that (b) humans have limited, fallible perception, including in the area of right/wrong discernment, what might you mean by "impeccable moral compass"?

Response To https://twitter.com/Clergy211/status/738083898152783872

To me, to the extent that the God/human relationship seems reasonably suggested to be as unique as the individuals within those relationships, and to the extent that God considers interaction between those individuals to be optimal, perception by each such individual of that which God knows is optimal with regard to other individuals' relationship with God seems desirable.

Response To https://twitter.com/Atheist_sausage/status/737941150380785664

To me, the issue seems to be the consequence of disagreement between two human (and apparently therefore, equally authoritative) "persons of authority" with conflicting goals due to conflicting perspective. To me, logic seems to suggest that their conflict seems to have no resolution but the intuitive decision to yield or to attempt to force the other to yield. In either case, logic does not seem to render either intuituve choice to necessarily yield the optimal outcome.

Response To https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Dreamer/status/737739615629676544

In addition to the response at http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/attributing-human-failings-to-god.html, to me, Adam and Eve's Genesis 3 experience might not be of small consequence, since it seems suggested to have introduced the sequence of adversities that has at least contributed to the horrors of the human experience for which so many seem to criticize God.

Response To https://twitter.com/Isaacharrop75/status/737708368958226433

Re: "moon as light", to me, Genesis 1 doesn't seem intended to serve as a technical science manual, but rather, as background information establishing (for the reader) God as creator and sovereign authority over reality, including the human experience.

With relevance to the human experience, the moon seems to function as a "night light". Perhaps the moon's reflection of light, rather than emission of light, isn't material to that point.

Re: "People living to 1000", I seem to recall suggestion that human life span has varied significantly over time, perhaps due to factors including lifestyle and environmental conditions, with revolutionary era lifespans seeming to have been in the 20s-30s, and contemporary lifespans seeming to reach over 100, an apparently five-fold increase. To me, suggestion seems reasonable that lifestyle and environmental conditions during proposed 1000-year-lifespan eras might have been sufficiently less deteriorative to human health and longevity to facilitate such lifespans, since many apparently-suggested health-damaging conditions seem suggested to have been brought on by human innovation.

Re: "Johnah inside the fish's stomach", a brief Google scan seems to reveal multiple non-Biblical accounts of sea creatures swallowing humans whole.

Re: "Talking donkey", to me, the sole logic that comes to mind is that of God's apparently Biblically-suggested sovereignty over all existence, perhaps establishing anomalies at God's apparently Biblically-suggested, omniscient discretion. Perhaps God simply gave the donkey temporary ability to communicate verbally.

Response To https://twitter.com/ZachsMind/status/737307871944134657

Apparently, much to reply to.

1) Re: "Brevity is the soul of wit. Next time just keep it to Twitter", I seem to have been interested in analytical discussion, rather than wit, hence the comment length. I typically maintain Twitter-initiated conversation on Twitter unless length seems to render it impractical, in which case, I post on Twitter a link to the outboard comment resource. That practice seems somewhat common.

2) Re: "That reads as suspicious double talk", how might "Doubting God's guidance seems to cause human experience problems, and God seems to provide sufficient basis upon which to base faith" constitute "double-talk"?

3) Re: "There is a dependence on the god concept. However, there is no objective evidence of the existence of the god", laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy and Mass/Energy Equivalence seem to provide that evidence. Reality seems to be a closed system, conservation seems to constitute constant existence, which in regression seems to constitute infinite past existence. If energy is suggested to be the fundamental component of all other reality, then energy seems reasonably suggested to be the source of all other reality. In summary, energy seems suggested to be the infinitely-existing source of all other reality. The Bible seems to suggest such a point of reference via the name "God".

4) Re: "Even at the beginning of Genesis. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." This is a given. This is a presupposition. God's already there. There's no explanation for the creation of a god, as it's presumed he's eternal. Then it presumes he created the universe, giving the universe a beginning.", to me, the same seems precisely suggested regarding time-space. The sole difference seems to be in choice of name, and the apparently substantiate-able characteristics of God such as omniscience and omnipotence.

5) Regarding the suggested debunking of certain of the Bible's assertions, I don't claim to know whether the Bible's anecdotes are intended to be considered factual or allegorical, however, I seem to have identified basis upon which to consider multiple, challenged Bible assertions to be scientifically viable. To the extent that both substantiation and refutation of those apparent Bible assertions seem no more irrefutable than estimation, and the extent to which those estimations seem subject to human error, and the extent to which such estimation error seems undetectable via actual confirmation, to me, the conflicting claims seem appropriately dismissed from analytical debate. Either side seems capable of claiming the personal incredulity of the other side with regard to proposed evidence.

Response To https://twitter.com/TruthTeamOne/status/737172606827139074

My current interest in cosmology seems to be the extent to which it might attest to the apparently Biblically-suggested existence of God as a testament-in-turn to the Bible's apparently-suggested model for optimal human experience.

At this point, I seem to have presented the suggestion that Energy/Mass Equivalence/Conservation yields constant existence. Might you agree?

Response To https://twitter.com/PhoenixThis/status/737038414663585792

Firstly, a perspective: to the extent that God is the establisher of reality, "God did it" seems logically applicable to all reality, apparently including that which humans claim to understand. However, if your point does not assume God as the source of all else, then I seem to agree that logic seems to suggest that "I don't know how", by itself, seems to neither specify nor rule out God as the explanation.

Response To https://twitter.com/PhoenixThis/status/737007479364718592

Firstly, my discussion experience seems to suggest that the term "supernatural" might essentially refer to "that whose suggested existence seems to contradict the humanly-perceived patterns of existence". To me, the extent to which human recognition of reality's patterns is accepted as not being exhaustive seems to leave logical potential for such actual existence. Apparently, as a result, the concept "supernatural" seems to have little place in logical analysis of existence and non-existence, including with regard to the existence of God. Apparently, God either does or does not exist.

That said, the SIDP link seems to propose substantiation of God's existence via three of science's findings and their apparently most logical implications. Might you be interested in presenting the reasoning flaw(s) you might perceive in the proposed substantiation?

Response To https://twitter.com/theatheistal/status/736989360277487616

A reasonable suggestion seems to be that certain patterns exist within human reality, however reason seems to support the suggestion that God's "mind" and "thought" are not like human mind and thought, as Isaiah 55:8-9 seems to suggest. An example seems to be in conceptualizing infinite past. The human cognitive process seems incapable of perceiving it, but God seems reasonably suggested to be capable of it because God seems reasonably suggested to have experienced it.

Response To https://twitter.com/TomBeltz/status/736990554102353920

Although I seem to agree that examining the Bible's apparent optimal human experience model with thinkers who hold contrasting viewpoints seems to strengthen my confidence in the Bible's model, my primary motivation has been a desire to contribute to optimal societal experience by presenting that model.

Response To https://twitter.com/LindaBeatty/status/735470754318274560

To me, the Biblical concept of God being all-loving (a) might warrant clarification, and (b) seems reasonable, when clarified, apparently including part of the comment's apparently-suggested exception.

Firstly, to me, the suggestion that God egomaniacally demands worship seems to warrant requested justification. Genesis 1-2 seems to depict the apparently problem-free human experience prior to introduction of problems in Genesis 3, apparently including God's instructions to humanity: numerous entitlements in Genesis 1, and 1 prohibition in Genesis 2. Worship of God seems unmentioned. To me, respect for God's sovereign authority seems implied, rather than stated, via (a) God setting side the seventh day of the week as special, apparently commemorating God's preceding six-day creation week, and (b) God specifying a restriction upon human behavior in Genesis 2.

Secondly, Exodus 20:1-17 seems to comprise the "ten commandments" and seems to contain no mention of worshipping God, however, again calling for respect for God's sovereign authority in its initial verses.

Lastly, 2 Samuel 7:1-7 seems to describe King David conveying (to the prophet Nathan) David's idea to build a temple for God's "presence", apparently to replace the simple tent apparently in use at the time. God subsequently seems described as rewarding David for David's apparently good intention toward God, but also seems described as clarifying that, during all of Israel's experience with God since the Exodus from Egypt, that God had never asked for such (2 Samuel 7:5-7).

To me, these three Biblical depictions of God do not seem to portray egomaniacal demand for worship.

To me, human rejection of the apparently implied call for respect for God's sovereign authority (apparently exemplified in Genesis 2 and Exodus 20) seems appropriately responded to, especially in light of the apparent adverse impact upon reality that such rejection, and behavior based thereupon, seem to potentially have.

Response To https://twitter.com/jagatr/status/736938598973378564

To me, "science" seems most clearly defined as the study of reality using specific guidelines that seem intended to limit the conclusions drawn regarding reality to those conclusions that seem rather likely to accurately represent the reality.

To me, "facts" seems to refer in general to descriptions of reality that accurately represent reality.

Response To https://twitter.com/LindaBeatty/status/736828188056117249

What might the video's point be?

In addition, to me, science seems to avoid publishing assertion regarding the existence of God since said existence seems to be one of multiple things that humans currently seem unable to perceive upon demand, predict and/or control. As a result, the purpose for presenting science's findings does not seem to be to suggest that science has "gotten it all wrong", but to suggest that the people who reference science to suggest that God does not exist seem scientifically substantiated to have gotten that suggestion wrong.

Response To https://twitter.com/MR_ATL1087/status/736917377472995328

If I might respectfully suggest, to me, as a believer in God (as described by the Bible, and as apparently substantiated by science's findings), most of the human experience attributes listed in the left image seem similar to those apparently suggested by the Bible. However, the following of them seem based upon reasoning that seems incompatible within a secular context.

To the extent that you might be interested in debating this suggestion, I respectfully submit the following reasoning:

• #6. "Morality, not religion". To the extent that (a) "morality" refers to the "good/bad" dichotomy, (b) "religion" includes the suggested existence of God, as described by the Bible, (c) human perception is considered equally authoritative among humans, and (d) humans perception of good and bad seems to differ among humans, morality seems indefinable without a higher-than-human authority.
• #8. "Good without God". Similarly, "good" seems indefinable without a higher-than-human authority, that authority seeming to be Biblically-suggested, and scientifically substantiated as being God.
• #10. "Rationality without Ideology". Perhaps your intended meanings for "rationality" and "ideology" warrant clarification. Google seems to suggest (a) "Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action", and (b) ideology to be "a system of ideas and ideals...". To me, reason seems based upon ideas, and therefore, rationality seems based upon ideology.

The Religion/Secular Debate

To me, thus far, the issue of Biblical historicity, accuracy and relevance does not seem irrefutably resolvable since (a) it seems to involve claims that do not seem substantiated beyond estimation, and (b) viable alternatives seem to exist for the conclusions apparently drawn from said estimation.

Apparently as a result, I seem to have shifted my focus toward the issue that seems to underlie the issue of Biblical historicity, accuracy and relevance: optimal strategy for achieving optimal human experience. To me, the apparent Biblical strategy for achieving optimal human experience seems substantiatable based upon science and secularly history alone, whether Biblical anecdotes are historical fact or allegory.

Evolution Versus Creation: Issue Resolved (For Me)

This essay has been moved to "The Value Of Religio-Secular Debate".

God's Prohibitions

Responds to: https://twitter.com/iamatheistgirl/status/728928059043127296

To me, the Bible does not seem to describe God as withholding from humans any appropriate experience. However, an issue seems to be that limited human perception seems to potentially not perceive the hazards of certain human behavior, apparently warranting God's advice against such behavior, as Genesis 2 and 3 seem to suggest (SIDP essay "Substantiation: Adam and Eve", section entitled "The Tree Of The Knowledge of Good And Evil").

Disagreement Between Believers In God

Responds to: https://twitter.com/reasonandlogic/status/728929424205357056

To me, the Bible seems to suggest that God/human relationships are as unique as the human individuals within them. Apparently therefore, a certain amount of valid difference seems logically suggested to exist between God/human relationship experiences.

In addition, however, the Bible seems to also suggest that some vary from God's design for general and/or specific human experience, apparently resulting in a difference between God-complying and non-God-complying human perspective.

Balancing Reliance Upon God And Self

To me, both the Bible and science's findings seem to suggest that the cause of social issues seems to be the attempt to provide for self that which is the purview of God. I welcome your thoughts, including to the contrary.

Referring To "Religion"

Many seem to use the term "religion" to refer to both (a) God and God's design for the human experience and the God/human relationship, and (b) human behavior related to belief in God. To me, when God and human behavior related to belief in God are considered one homogeneous point of reference, certain of their apparently important, unique attributes seem potentially and inappropriately considered as being shared among them.

Response To https://twitter.com/reasonandlogic/status/728242756255133697

Re: God Can't Or Won't Stop Human Inhumanity Against Humanity, I welcome your thoughts regarding http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-didnt-god-prevent-it.html.

Response To https://twitter.com/Dana2atheism/status/727955448847020032

Might you consider this essay relevant to Biblical creationism?

Response To https://twitter.com/moinedeisme/status/727868569438969856

Re: "Your answers are sophist rather than honest", to me, this comment seems to constitute unsubstantiated assertion. If this is your position, perhaps you might consider substantiating the claim.

Response To https://twitter.com/moinedeisme/status/727867788178546688

I don't seem to be sure what you mean, and therefore welcome clarification. Why assume two people? What might an SP acct be? To whose and what mess might you intend reference?

Response To https://twitter.com/moinedeisme/status/727865913521803264

Re: "Creation ex nihilo almost hardly explored... I see no need to chase you down a rabbit hole you're not hiding in", I'm not sure what you mean my this, however, if you mean that we have not covered the reasonable gamut of our related perspective regarding "creation mechanics", I seem to think that the topic might prove interesting.

In addition, I'm not sure regarding whether you intend to suggest that the Bible suggests CEN. If so, I welcome suggestion of other passages upon which the suggestion seems based.

Re: "Suffice to say a significant portion of your community disagree with you doctrinally", I seem to agree, and if said significant portion proposes CEN, then to me, that disagreement seems only one of multiple differences in perspective. I seem capable of suggesting more of such differences.

Re: "A fact you seem reluctant to acknowledge", to me, my wording doesn't seem intended to convey reluctance toward acknowledging a difference in CEN-related perspective, but rather, to communicate not being familiar with the suggestion as being generally held among creationists. To me, both creationists and science acknowledge an "unknown phenomenon", perhaps on the other side of the "Big Bang". Science seems to simply state lack of knowledge regarding what to credit, and creationists seem to credit whatever phenomenon occurs in God's creative process between the apparently Biblically-suggested "and God said let there be" and "and there was". However, I don't claim that my apparent lack of awareness of such a trend in creationist thought renders the suggested trend non-existent.

Re: "Perhaps you could actually state what your position is in regard to origins", the most that I seem to conclude seems to be based upon the laws of conservation of mass and energy and mass-energy equivalence. They seem to the infinitely-existing source of finite existences. Therefore, the apparently-proposed Big Bang might well have been just one of multiple creative events throughout infinite past.

Re: "you need to demonstrate how "god" was the mechanism as opposed to an already existing natural explanation", I don't claim to be able to demonstrate that God was the mechanism as opposed to an already existing natural explanation. As mentioned above, I seem to have encountered the suggestion that science acknowledges not understanding the initial portion of the "Big Bang". To me, this seems to suggest that no natural explanation currently exists. To me, science's perspective seems to be that they hope to develop such a natural explanation. My perspective seems to be that I neither agree nor disagree that science will develop a natural explanation.

A major difference between science's related perspective and mine seems to be that, to me, the apparent similarity between (a) the apparent implications of the energy and mass concepts referenced above and (b) the Bible's apparent description of God as the infinitely-existing source of all else (apparently without the writers' having been exposed to those science findings) seems to render the Biblical suggestion reasonable. To summarize, science seems to say "we don't know how yet", and the Bible seems to say "God did it".

Re: "As we know, if something can occur in nature then there's no need for a god to complicate things", To me, science's apparent identification of certain patterns occurring in nature doesn't seem to disprove the suggestion that God is responsible for those patterns. In fact, to me, logic and reason seems to render the Bible's apparent depiction of God's existence (as the party somehow responsible for the energy that science seems to suggest comprises everything else) as being the most logical conclusion, as the SIDP essay "Attributes Of God" seems to suggest (link on the SIDP homepage. Clicking the SIDP website header image should navigate to the SIDP homepage). I welcome the opportunity to discuss the SIDP-proposed reasoning.

Response To https://twitter.com/moinedeisme/status/727531432873177088

Personal perspective: Plan B might be preferable. I seem to prefer rooting social media platform-initiated conversation in the initial host's platform, using external platforms solely to supplement the host's capabilities.

Re: creation ex nihilo and Heb 11:3, to me, although creation ex nihilo might comprise a percentage of relevant perspective, Heb 11:3 seems reasonably interpreted as not suggesting creation ex nihilo, since it seems to read "...so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear". Without the benefit of Einstein's apparent energy-mass equivalence suggestion, the Biblical quote seems consistent with that suggestion.

Re: "I could make the argument your meme doesn't represent those of atheists at large", might the argument be based upon a specific statement of mine?

Re: "If you knowingly misrepresent someones beliefs or draw conclusions about their character as a consequence of those ideas, then how can we trust anything you say as true", for clarification's sake, might you consider the drawing of conclusions about character based upon the subject's beliefs as always bad? MIght the issue you address be more accurately articulated as drawing conclusions about character based upon insufficient information regarding the subject's beliefs?

I welcome your thoughts.

Response To https://twitter.com/MissMingLee92/status/727566889942134784

Some seem to categorize consequences as rewards and punishments, based upon whether the consequences are considered desirable and incentive for repeating the behavior, or undesirable and incentive for avoiding the behavior considered to have resulted in a consequence. That categorization seems somewhat generally considered one of the attributes that separates higher life forms from lower life forms and the apparently so-called inanimate.

Response To https://twitter.com/moinedeisme/status/727481892774146048

Perhaps incorrectly, I don't seem to recall Genesis 1 suggesting that God created everything from nothing, but rather that the earth was without form and void, and that certain aspects of the earth-relevant system existed subsequent to God "suggesting" their existence.

The conservation of energy and mass, and mass-energy equivalence concepts seem to suggest that physical items are transformations of energy. Perhaps, therefore, Genesis 1:2 refers to a point at which the energy that was to become Earth was in somewhat of an unformed state.

To me, the apparent suggestion that God "called" things into existence doesn't necessarily suggest much detail regarding the mechanics thereof, perhaps similarly to the phrase "I drove here" might not detail all of the processes that comprised that hypothetical eventuality.

To me, God doesn't seem clearly Biblically-suggested to have human vocal cords, so God "saying" something doesn't seem to necessarily equate to the phenomenon of human "saying". The phrase "And God said 'Let there be light'", might simply be the closest humanly-relatable phenomenon to that which occurred, and might have been implemented to convey the general concept and move onward.

I welcome reasoned response.

Validity Of Genesis 3

The SIDP doesn't seem to suggest that positive evidence exists for the Genesis 3 serpent's existence, nor does the SIDP seem to insist that the Genesis 3 account is historical fact. The SIDP seems to propose science's findings that seem to preclude categorizing the account as necessarily or even likely fiction. The relevant portion of the website essay presents science's findings that seem to suggest the potential for the apparently Biblically-suggested serpent to have existed, and presents apparently reasonable, potential conditions under which such an apparently potentially-existent being might leave no relatively contemporarily discovered or identified evidence.

Validity Of Adam And Eve As Humanity's Starting Point

I seem to respectfully abstain from that debate since, to me, the Bible seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that Adam and Eve might have been the first two in the lineage of Israel, since the Old Testament seems reasonably suggested to be about the God/human relationship within the context of a sample group selected for the purpose of helping all humans better understand the nature of the human experience and its apparent dependence upon the God/human relationship.

Defining "Closed System" For The Laws Of Conservation

per my fallible understanding, the sole difference between a closed and open system is that an open system is considered to include a surrounding context to and from which system components can transfer. A closed system seems to be a context to and from which system components cannot transfer to surrounding context. Logic seems to suggest that a closed system can therefore apply to either a sealed subset context or the superset since, in the former, no system components can transfer to or from the subset context, and in the latter, since a superset refers to "all that exists" there exists no surrounding context for system component exchange.

The Reasoning For God As Wielder Of Energy

to me, energy seems not to have those attributes, which seems to me to suggest that there must exist a point of reference with those attributes, not solely because the Bible suggests so (although that seems to me to be the source of my exposure to the concept), but because the attributes seem most logically suggested to be intrinsic to the source of the remainder of reality, as the SIDP Attributes essay seems to demonstrate.

Response To https://twitter.com/creationwrong/status/726866202895736836

skipping over the unsubstantiated assertion "it doesn't", re: energy as God, that does not seem to be the SIDP suggestion, but rather, that science seems to attribute to energy the infinitely-existent sourcing of all other aspects of observed reality that the Bible attributes to God.

Response To https://twitter.com/creationwrong/status/726864943514017797

If I might respectfully suggest, to me, in the context of analytical discussion, "grasp at for effect" seems ad hominem. To me, within such context, a position is or isn't demonstrably reasonable and might optimally be demonstrated as such or left unaddressed. I welcome clarification.

Response To: @LindaBeatty 726648089113567232

---

To me both are religious. What is your distinction between religious people and people who believe in god? :)

---

@LindBeatty, after re-reviewing my response and your question, I think that I might have addressed a different distinction. :) Important as that distinction might seem to be to me, my answer to your question seems to be that "religious people" in your previous comment seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that belief in God is based upon lack of reason. However, the SIDP website suggests that belief in God seems strongly substantiated by science's apparent findings and reason. I welcome your thoughts. :)

Response To: @LindaBeatty 726648089113567232

---

To me both are religious. What is your distinction between religious people and people who believe in god? :)

---

@LindaBeatty, thank you for responding. :)

If I may respectfully mention, my perspective seems based upon the assumption that God exists. However, I acknowledge and respect the possibility that you might not be convinced of that assumption's validity.

The majority of proposed scientific substantiation for the following seems posted on the SIDP website. I welcome reasoned comment, question and rebuttal.

I seem to sense a distinction between God and religion. To me, God seems Biblically-suggested to be omniscient, and supremely benevolent. Religion, however, seems reasonably suggested to refer to some combination of (a) human, limited perception of God, (b) human, intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of God, and/or (c) human attempt to benevolently or otherwise administrate God/human relationship. Nonetheless, "religion" seems also reasonably interpreted as including God, since God is religion's apparently typical focus.

Your comment seems to portray "religion" negatively. To me, thus far, the above-suggested attributes of God seem to preclude God from being inappropriate. However, religion as described above, due to its apparently fallible, human element, seems logically expected to produce undesirable behavioral outcomes, even among those who claim association with God or and/or claim to be behaving on God's behalf.

Perhaps, therefore, if we assume for analysis' sake that God exists as apparently portrayed by the Bible, the potential to ascribe human failing to God seems to warrant distinguishing between God and religion.

I welcome your thoughts.

SIDP Mission

The Social Issues Discussion Project ("SIDP") presents science's findings that seem to parallel, and perhaps therefore, substantiate the Bible's suggested fundamental cause of and solution for social issues.

Addressing Social Issues' Fundamental Cause And Solution
Science's findings seem to substantiate the Bible's apparent suggestion that social issues are symptoms of an underlying cause. If they are, relieving social issue symptoms might be important, but those symptoms seem likely to reemerge unless the underlying cause is resolved. The SIDP presents the proposed underlying cause and its solution.

Presentation and Discussion

• based upon science with Internet references
• presented as theory open to substantiated challenge
• cooperative and respectful dialog
• SIDP Chatroom facilitates global, Internet, text-based discussion that seems more effective in some ways than oral discussion.

Strength Of Evidence And Reasoning
Since its maiden discussion in 2011, SIDP perspective seems to have stood up to scrutiny from differing perspectives with apparently high levels of topic experience, seems to have earned the respect of those less receptive to other approaches, and seems to have been described by many as enjoyable and educational.

Scope Of Benefit
The scope of benefit seems typically narrow for humanitarian efforts that address social issues. However, the SIDP addresses social issues' underlying cause, and therefore seems to impact every aspect of social issues, including the effectiveness of other humanitarian efforts.

Substantiation: Key Attributes of God

Science's findings seem to substantiate the Bible's apparent suggestion of key attributes of God, the source of all other existence.

• Sovereign Creator
  The source's apparently infinite sourcing of all other existence seems to warrant the description "Sovereign Creator".
• Intellectual Being
  Intellect seems to be an attribute of the source of existence, for, if all existence is a formation of energy, all human activity seems by definition to be energy's activity. Therefore, the activity of energy, or of the source that wields energy, seems to be that which humans describe as intellect.
• Omniscient (All-Knowing)
  A sovereign, intellectual source of everything seems most logically to have complete awareness/knowledge about everything that it sources, and therefore be omniscient.
• Omnipotent (All-Powerful)
  A sovereign, intellectual, omniscient source of existence seems most logically capable of manipulating everything that it sources, including human thought and behavior.
• Supremely Benevolent
  A sovereign, intellectual, omniscient, omnipotent source of existence seems most logically to be more capable of benevolence than any other existence.
• Omnipresent (Always Everywhere)
  The infinite existence of the source seems most logically to suggest the source to be always chronologically present. The unknown spatial form of the source, especially in light of the apparent chronically infinite existence of the source, seems not to offer basis upon which to suggest that the source's form is geographically limited.

Supporting The SIDP

The SIDP seeks financial support to cover appropriate operating costs and salary for its sole operator. Support to date has consisted of large and small church and individual donations.

The SIDP can be reached via cellular text message to (954) 253-3180, via email text message to 9542533180@mms.att.net, via the SIDP chatroom (see "SIDP Chatroom" in Table Of Contents), and via email at pbsidp@yahoo.com.

SIDP Website

The SIDP website, launched on Thursday, December 19, 2013, details the SIDP theory and presents substantiation from science with references published by secular sources.

Website articles are displayed on the left with comment posting underneath, and the "Connect To" panel on the top right houses links for the SIDP Chatroom and for SIDP social media.

The table of contents under the "Connect To" panel displays main website articles, some of which contain links to other SIDP articles on the SIDP website. Immediately below the table of contents, the "Revisions" list lists all SIDP website articles in most recent creation or revision date order.