Response To https://twitter.com/TriAtheist/status/741252703087529984

To me, a humanly-developed moral standard seems incapable of consisting of anything more than preference, and, in social settings, of anything more than general consensus preference. To me, the main factor that seems to determine the propriety of such a humanly-established moral standard seems to be whether or not a more authoritative moral standard exists. That main factor seems to return the discussion to whether God exists as the establisher of reality's moral standard. To me, science's findings seem to substantiate the suggestion that God does.

Response To https://twitter.com/Atheist_Bot/status/740704659980046336

To me, the flood solution seems to have resulted from the extent to which human "free will" seems to potentially result in people not following God's directions, and as a result, imposing harm upon the human experience, and perhaps as well, other aspects of reality beyond the human experience. Apparently, following God's child-raising directions (the most fundamental tenet of which seeming to be to teach children to follow God's directions) seems reasonably suggested to increase the likelihood of children following God's directions and thereby contributing to optimal human experience, and perhaps as well, reality beyond the human experience, when compared to not following God's child-raising directions to teach children to follow God's directions.

Response To https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/740160461413326848

To clarify, my point seems to be that your question seems likely illogical in the apparently current, real-life context since it seems to seek methodology for disproving the existence of the apparently likely existent. Apparently, since humans are limited-perception and fallible-perception beings, that seems as close to absolute of a statement as humans can make. To me, if humans weren't limited-perception and fallible-perception beings, the statement might be "your question is illogical in the current, real-life context since it seeks methodology for disproving the existence of the existent". To me, the apparently human need for assertion disclaimers does not seem to invalidate the apparently objective reality to which human, disclaimed assertion is intended to refer. Apparently as a result, from perspective that considers God's existence to be objective reality, presentation of that perspective in the form of a hypothesis does not seem to negate the apparent illogic of attempting to disprove that hypothesis' apparently underlying objective reality.

Response To https://twitter.com/THISSBRAVA/status/740039018071642112

I seem to respect the perspective. To me, the suggestion that the basis for distinguishing between right and wrong is human common sense does not seem to delineate the distinction between right and wrong, but simply seems to suggest a human-based point of reference responsible for distinguishing between right and wrong. To me, however, deference to human common sense does not seem to resolve the issue, because the authoritative basis for distinguishing between those who do and those who don't have common sense does not yet seem identified.

Response To https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/739993058368884736

To me, an important point regarding the desire to disprove God's apparently Biblically-suggested and science-findings'-paralleled existence seems to be that, if God does exist, God's existence seems impossible to disprove. Apparently, as a result, to me, to the extent that God exists, and to the extent that I propose that God exists, and to the extent that you are posing to me the question of how to prove that my proposal of God's existence is wrong, your apparently posed question seems illogical.

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.