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?