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.