Response To https://twitter.com/moinedeisme/status/727865913521803264

Re: "Creation ex nihilo almost hardly explored... I see no need to chase you down a rabbit hole you're not hiding in", I'm not sure what you mean my this, however, if you mean that we have not covered the reasonable gamut of our related perspective regarding "creation mechanics", I seem to think that the topic might prove interesting.

In addition, I'm not sure regarding whether you intend to suggest that the Bible suggests CEN. If so, I welcome suggestion of other passages upon which the suggestion seems based.

Re: "Suffice to say a significant portion of your community disagree with you doctrinally", I seem to agree, and if said significant portion proposes CEN, then to me, that disagreement seems only one of multiple differences in perspective. I seem capable of suggesting more of such differences.

Re: "A fact you seem reluctant to acknowledge", to me, my wording doesn't seem intended to convey reluctance toward acknowledging a difference in CEN-related perspective, but rather, to communicate not being familiar with the suggestion as being generally held among creationists. To me, both creationists and science acknowledge an "unknown phenomenon", perhaps on the other side of the "Big Bang". Science seems to simply state lack of knowledge regarding what to credit, and creationists seem to credit whatever phenomenon occurs in God's creative process between the apparently Biblically-suggested "and God said let there be" and "and there was". However, I don't claim that my apparent lack of awareness of such a trend in creationist thought renders the suggested trend non-existent.

Re: "Perhaps you could actually state what your position is in regard to origins", the most that I seem to conclude seems to be based upon the laws of conservation of mass and energy and mass-energy equivalence. They seem to the infinitely-existing source of finite existences. Therefore, the apparently-proposed Big Bang might well have been just one of multiple creative events throughout infinite past.

Re: "you need to demonstrate how "god" was the mechanism as opposed to an already existing natural explanation", I don't claim to be able to demonstrate that God was the mechanism as opposed to an already existing natural explanation. As mentioned above, I seem to have encountered the suggestion that science acknowledges not understanding the initial portion of the "Big Bang". To me, this seems to suggest that no natural explanation currently exists. To me, science's perspective seems to be that they hope to develop such a natural explanation. My perspective seems to be that I neither agree nor disagree that science will develop a natural explanation.

A major difference between science's related perspective and mine seems to be that, to me, the apparent similarity between (a) the apparent implications of the energy and mass concepts referenced above and (b) the Bible's apparent description of God as the infinitely-existing source of all else (apparently without the writers' having been exposed to those science findings) seems to render the Biblical suggestion reasonable. To summarize, science seems to say "we don't know how yet", and the Bible seems to say "God did it".

Re: "As we know, if something can occur in nature then there's no need for a god to complicate things", To me, science's apparent identification of certain patterns occurring in nature doesn't seem to disprove the suggestion that God is responsible for those patterns. In fact, to me, logic and reason seems to render the Bible's apparent depiction of God's existence (as the party somehow responsible for the energy that science seems to suggest comprises everything else) as being the most logical conclusion, as the SIDP essay "Attributes Of God" seems to suggest (link on the SIDP homepage. Clicking the SIDP website header image should navigate to the SIDP homepage). I welcome the opportunity to discuss the SIDP-proposed reasoning.