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?