Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745931546192977920

The comment's apparent suggestion that God's existence precludes human self-determination seems false since, to me, the definition of self-determination seems to be the ability to intellectually determine which of multiple, achievable behaviors to pursue, and to me, humans seem generally considered to have that capability.

Re: potential punishment for non-compliance, to me, (a) this apparently Biblically proposed God/human relationship dynamic seems most logically suggested to limit rather than preclude human self-determination. Apparently, despite this apparent limitation, humans seem generally considered to enjoy the highest level of self-determination of all observed forms of existence. (b) Limitation of human self-determination does not seem suggested to be solely imposed by God in the form of punishment for non-compliance. The extent to which humans are not omnipotent seems reasonably suggested to limit human self-determination. (c) The statement's apparent depiction of the impact of proposed punishment by God (for non-compliance with God) upon self-determination does not seem to include the apparent potential harm to human self-determination of non-compliance with God (apparently substantiated by the Bible, science's findings and history), and God's apparent responsibility to protect reality.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745931087088590848

This analogy seems to also substantiate my point. However, my proposed analogy claim does not seem to be that an alphabet equates to a sonnet, but that the members of an alphabet have all been given a small level of communicative power such that, when "concentrated" into words and then cooperatively combined with other such concentrations of members of an alphabet (words), the much greater communicative power of a sonnet seems recognized. If the members of an alphabet have no individual communicative power, "concentrations" of the alphabet's members and combinations of such "concentrations" seem to also not have communicative power, apparently for example, in the case of an unrecognized alphabet.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745907917782683648

I seem to have quoted the text from the post in this thread to which I originally responded. The apparent image capture of the essay which I originally presented in this thread seems to me to specifically present proposal of science's apparent substantiation of God as infinitely-existing source of all else, one of apparently multiple, substantiated, foundational premises presented as proposed substantiation for God as the key to optimal human experience.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745891357068238848

Twitter seems to show my initial comment in this thread to be a response to @Prophecy_Geek's comment that "... #Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods ...", to which I seem to have responded by welcoming response to an essay proposing substantiation by science of the Bible's apparently-suggested existence of God, and of the apparent Biblically-proposed link between God's proposed existence and optimal human experience (the apparent main message of the Bible to which I seem to have been proposing that analysis proceed to), not of proposed substantiation of perceived Bible/science irreconcilabilities in general.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745795598029295616

If I might respectfully suggest, to me, your comments do not seem accurately described as having revealed flaws in the representation, but as having proposed a flaw of Bible/science irreconcilability that seems to have been falsified, and possibly proposed a flaw that the proposed substantiation of God's existence seems applicable to multiple schools of thought, an apparent observation that seems to support that proposed existence and its proposed substantiation thereof, rather than constitute a flaw therein. Apparently as a result, neither of the two proposed flaws seems to stand. Apparently, therefore, barring additional proposed flaws in the presentation thus far, analysis seems freed to move forward to other proposed substantiation.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745794177317875716

Re: [You completely ignored how your "method" would "seem" to "substantiate" other myths], to me, the comment was not ignored, but seemed to offer no value as a rebuttal since the extent to which the concept of a higher-than-human source/authority is common to multiple schools of thought does not seem logically considered a negative quality of said concept or a negative quality of proposed substantiation by science of said concept. Apparently, to the contrary, the apparently common existence of a concept within otherwise distinguishable schools of thought seems somewhat generally considered to logically render the concept more likely valid (although not necessarily valid) via that metric alone than their differing precepts. I seem to have therefore interpreted the comment as a likely instance of "thinking out loud" that did not necessitate response. However, since, to the contrary, you seem to be calling for response to a comment apparently presented within the context of a rebuttal position, yet, that seems to substantiate the rebutted position, I respectfully respond, "To me, the proposed substantiation does seem applicable to a higher-than-human source/authority proposal by otherwise distinguishable schools of thought".

Re: "What do you imagine is resolved?", (a) the apparent assertion that the Bible is not substantiated by science seems to have been falsified, and (b) the matter of other proposed Bible/science conflicts that do not seem germane to the Bible's apparent main message seems to have been de-prioritized, apparently, therefore, allowing analysis to move forward to the apparently more germane matter of substantiation by science of the Bible's apparent main message.