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.