Response To https://twitter.com/Isaacharrop75/status/737548108138061825

The posted comment seems to suggest a distinction between scientists and religious people. To me, the primary distinction might not be science versus religion, but rather, administration of the human experience via human intellect versus administration of the human experience via God as primary relationship and sovereign authority. To me, logic doesn't seem to suggest that being fascinated by the study of different aspects of reality precludes acceptance of God as reality's sovereign establisher and authority, as the SIDP website seems to demonstrate. However, (a) acceptance of God as primary relationship and sovereign authority and (b) acceptance of human intellect as primary relationship and sovereign authority do seem to be two, mutually-exclusive choices.

To me, having read the Bible in its entirety doesn't render me cognizant of everything important about the human experience. However, the Bible's apparent message that God as primary relationship and sovereign authority is the key to optimal human experience seems to lock so tightly with science's apparent findings and answer all the questions that I've encountered, that neither a reasoning flaw nor a stronger explanation seems to have been identified in more than 5 years of engaging in this discussion with those presenting contrasting viewpoints.

To me, insult, unsubstantiated refutation and issue deflection by holders of contrasting viewpoints does not seem to contribute much to issue analysis. Apparently, experienced debaters seem to suggest association of such behavior with likely indication of lack of substantiated refutation.

To me, much of the debate between Biblical thought and other religious and secular thought seems to center around apparently contrasting estimations of the past in order to determine the path going forward. To the extent that those estimations do not seem irrefutably resolvable, perhaps the issue focus might optimally be turned to analysis of proposed paths forward. To me, the Bible seems to demonstrably propose the most self-consistent and scientifically-consistent path forward, and the SIDP website seems to portray it. Substantiated suggestion of its reasoning flaws seems welcome. Submitting "God doesn't exist" as a reasoning flaw doesn't seem a valuable contribution in light of the apparent substantiation of God's apparent existence by science's findings. Refutation of God's existence would seem to need to substantiate refutation of science's apparently relevant findings.