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?