Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/747522039746072576

To me, I seem to have demonstrated that logically sound reasoning, based upon science's findings, depicts the apparently Biblically-suggested attributes of infinite existence, consciousness, omniscience, omnipotence, and (I haven't yet presented) supreme benevolence for the role of source of all other existence simply using energy. The current point of the discussion does not even take into account the apparent final piece of the presentation's reasoning that seems to strongly suggest God as the point of reference at the beginning of the existential sequence of events that (a) actually has the attributes that the presented reasoning has (for analysis' sake) thus far attributed to energy and (b) effects the behavior of energy that seems to demonstrate the presented attributes.

To me, the rebuttal criticism (of a refusal to accept that the presentation assumes too much and pretends where it does not assume too much) seems similar to all but one submitted rebuttal in that it seems unaccompanied by supportive reasoning. The one exception that seems to come to mind seems clearly demonstrated via response reasoning to be flawed. To me, such unsupported criticism seems therefore ad hominem. Nonetheless, I respect the perspective.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/746381424199106560

My proposal does not seem to be that consciousness, as apparently recognized in existence of a certain minimum level of complexity is found in simple energy, but rather, as apparently described in an earlier post, that consciousness seems most logically suggested to consist of high-complexity-awareness formed of lower-complexity awareness of energies compressed and combined with other compressed energies.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/746380877119238144

My suggestion does not seem to be that an alphabet transmits the same complexity of information of a sonnet, but that "the members of an alphabet have all been given a small level of communicative power 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". The analogy's apparent parallel seems to be that, although the hypothesized low-complexity awareness of low-complexity energy might not equate to the apparent high-complexity awareness of high-complexity energy concentration combinations, the apparent ability of low-complexity energy to identify and respond to externality seems to most logically constitute awareness, albeit at an apparently low level of complexity.

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.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745750200216621056

If I might respectfully suggest, if I propose reconciled Biblical main message and science, and you counter by challenging Bible/science reconcilability, and I demonstrate the apparent evidentiary weakness of that counter by demonstrating reconciliation of multiple Biblical assertions apparently previously considered irreconcilable , and propose that (a) those reconciliations seem to logically render the remaining proposed conflicts reasonably considered at least potentially reconcilable, (b) the remaining conflicts seem relatively irrelevant to the apparent Biblical main message, (c) the apparent Biblical main message seems so much more important than those remaining proposed conflicts, (d) the apparent Biblical main message seems solidly reconciled to science, and I propose moving analysis forward to the apparent Biblical main message, if you then repeat the apparently resolved counter of challenged Bible/science reconcilability, the repeated, apparently reasonably resolved counter might be the cause of a circular discussion.

Response To https://twitter.com/LindaBeatty/status/745618103132786688

(a) Aside from possible "poetic license" by prophets, God's statement seems a bit less abstract (Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 4:7). Perhaps to put criticism of God as malevolent into possibly more balanced perspective, consider the very next verse after Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 2:18.

(b) When humans say it, it seems either most likely logically false or intentionally harmful. When God says what God says (perhaps not exactly that phrase), it seems most likely logically true, apparently based at least upon the apparent need of limited, fallible human perspective for omniscient, supremely benevolent guidance, that need apparently substantiated by human science and history.

Response To https://twitter.com/jablomih/status/745726506245054465

I don't seem to claim to possess irrefutable reconciliation of every Biblical statement with science's findings. Validation of my presentation doesn't seem to require that because (a) I seem to have reconciled science with a subset of apparent Biblical assertion that seemed previously criticized as falsified by and irreconcilable with science's findings, (b) having done so seems to remove the "irrefutably irreconcilable" label from the remainder of Biblical assertion, (c) those Biblical "micro-assertions" do not seem to constitute the main focus of the Bible's apparent main message, but seem to constitute various points presented to convey the Bible's main message, and (d) I do seem to propose reconcilability of the Bible's main message with science's findings.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745523243138719744

The analogy seems to illustrate my point. Each surface area of the wool string seems reasonably suggested to have the capability to portray image. Relative image portrayal capacity seems a function of the size of the total image and the size of the wool string surface area being considered. Application of this analogy to the context being discussed seems to be that each "unit" of energy that participates in the possibly multiple-part eventualities apparently referred to as sentience, intelligence and will seems reasonably suggested to be capable of a less complex instance, the comparative complexity seeming reasonably suggested to be a function of the capacity of the more complex system and that of the energy unit being considered.

Response To https://twitter.com/jimmie_ard/status/745444764368023552

Re: Evil in unborn babies, I seem to recall suggestion that many behavioral tendencies seem genetically transferable.

I don't seem to recall specific mention of evil in animals, but two apparently contemporary concepts and one Bible verse seem to render that suggestion feasible. I seem to recall suggestion that increased aggressive human behavior seems associable with increased aggressive behavior in the interactive animal kingdom over time. In addition the animal kingdom seems considered largely carnivorous, but the Bible seems to suggest that all creatures were initially vegetarian. Perhaps the animal kingdom gradually developed aggressive behavior in reaction to experiences and other impact from aggressive human behavior.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/745152850028703744

In light of the apparent limited and fallible nature of human perception via which emergence seems suggested to be identified, might "be recognized" be a more accurate description than "emerge"? In addition, from what, other than energy, might they "emerge" since the complexity to which the comment seems to credit such emergence seems to simply refer to concentrations of energy and cooperative combinations of concentrations of energy?

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/744672254190026752

https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/744672254190026752 The work of holding atoms together seems reasonably suggested to be common to both rocks and computers, but if everything is made of energy, then the atoms themselves seem to be concentrations of energy.

To me, the suggestion does not seem to be that energy is "traded in" by reality for a mass item with certain qualities once the energy reaches a certain concentration. The more self-consistent suggestion seems to be that the "mass item" is an abstraction of energy in concentrated and possibly cooperative mode, and that the mass item will eventually deconcentrate into that which is recognized as energy. But, to me, the mass item doesn't seem suggested to stopped being energy.

Apparently similarly, reality doesn't seem suggested to swap a human item for sufficient energy. Humans, therefore, seem suggested to simply be concentrated energy, and all human behavior is simply the behavior of concentrated, cooperative energy.

Of course, I could be wrong, and welcome substantiated suggestion to that effect.

Response To https://twitter.com/InfoIsGood/status/743403129539014656

To me, the comment seems to suggest a distinction between science's proposed convergence upon truth (the apparent narrowing of the scope of assertion) and religion's proposed divergence at truth (the apparent broadening of the scope of assertion). To me, this distinction seems to imply, but not necessarily indicate comparative quality of the two topics, but rather, a difference in their natures.

To me, science seems solely concerned with the subset of reality that (a) seems humanly observed and (b) seems to exhibit predictable patterns. I seem to recall suggestion by scientists that much exists within the remainder of reality that is not yet considered to be humanly and predictably observed.

To me, logically, science's apparent convergent nature potentially eliminating false assertion regarding humanly and predictably observed matters might yield less falsehood, but not necessarily more truth. If, for example, the truth of a hypothetical matter contains ten true concepts, and ten related concepts are perceived, but only four of those perceived ten are true, then six of the perceived concepts seem logically false. Even if all six false concepts are subsequently eliminated at some point, if the remaining undiscovered six true concepts exist outside of the scope of human, predictable observation, convergence seems achieved upon only partial relevant truth, the total truth seeming to remain out of science's reach, resulting in a possibly unrecognized false representation of reality.

Religion, defined as human understanding of the proposed God/human relationship, seems to include two factors that seem to place religion outside of the bounds of the apparent subset of reality apparently focused upon by science: (a) God, who does not seem humanly and predictably observed, and (b) relationship-related interaction, regarding which the number of relevant variables seems inconducive to predictable, human observation.

Relationship interaction assertion seems logically more likely to diverge at truth due to the apparently large number of potential values for the factors of (a) unique, human, relationship-relevant characteristics, and (b) circumstance. Apparently as a result, outcomes of a relationship interaction might vary among relationships and even among points in time within the same relationship, apparently due to changes in circumstance.

To me, the apparently divergent-at-truth nature of religion does not seem to warrant eliminating attempting to vet religious assertion. Perhaps to the contrary, to the extent that religion holds the key to optimal human experience that science can not produce, addressing religion seems a logically more pressing issue than addressing secular science.

To me, therefore, the line of qualitative distinction seems optimally drawn where either science or religion presents understanding that is false, incomplete, or not applicable within a particular context of focus, and does not seem optimally drawn categorically between religion and science. Each person seems personally responsible for drawing that person's line, whether by personally reviewing relevant information or by placing faith in another party and adopting that party's line of distinction.

The SIDP presents apparently overlooked information that seems relevant to the drawing of those lines, and apparently in turn, to the quality of individual and aggregate human experience that seems impacted by behavior undertaken based upon the drawing of those lines.

Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743106955695292416

Re: "The flood myth was written long before the buybull", to me, the comment "The myth Tale also suggested genocide was a good thing for humans" does not seem intended as an assessment of the account's historicity, but seems likely intended as a criticism of God's considering genocide a good thing for humans. My response seems to (a) attempt to place that criticism in its apparent context of Genesis 6:5, (b) compare that criticism to the apparent contradictory criticism of the extent to which God seems reasonably suggested to have left human evildoing and its resulting human suffering unchecked, and (c) pose the question of which criticism seems false. If the apparent response "The whole lot is false" is intended to suggest that both criticisms of God are false, I seem to agree, regardless of whether or not the flood account is historic.

Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743088297975648256

https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743088297975648256 I seem to attempt to phrase assertion conservatively to imply subjectivity to error as opposed to assumed irrefutable fact.

Re: "The myth Tale also suggested genocide was a good thing for humans", if this comment refers to Genesis 6's apparent flood account, I respectfully propose consideration of (a) the context apparently apparently described by Genesis 6:5, and (b) the apparent criticism of God's apparently-suggested "human experience management" for allowing "evildoing" and the suffering that results to go unchecked. Which of these apparent contradictory criticisms of God might you consider to be false?

Response To https://twitter.com/Tweeting_Reason/status/743073020042960896

To me, I seem to have stated my goal at the onset. To me, you seemed to have stated that the human experience has no intended purpose, and I seem to have responded that continuing along the proposed reasoning path might lead to a different conclusion (https://twitter.com/pbSIDP/status/742775991005794306). Since that point, my posts seem intended to review the apparently relevant factors to attempt to determine what, if any, conclusion they lead to. To me, so far, we seem to have progressed through several concepts to the issue of whether pain and pleasure have, from birth, the specific, primary, and humanly intrinsic role of incentivizing and dis-incentivizing specific behavior. To me, that seems the current state of the discussion.

Response To https://twitter.com/Tweeting_Reason/status/742823824224292866

I respectfully propose a clarification: to me, rather than simply being capable of being used for that purpose, from conception, the default role and purpose of pain and pleasure seems be to incentivize and dis-incentivize specific behavior. The extent to which experience might revise the pain/pleasure-to-behavior relationship seems to constitute another matter. Might you agree?

Response To https://twitter.com/ieswideopen/status/742822691866955776

The Laws of Conservation of Energy and Mass and Energy/Mass Equivalence seem to suggest that finitely-existing things aren't created or destroyed, but rather, are transformations of energy. If energy comprises everything else, then energy seems logically suggested to be the source of all other observed existence. Science does not seem to suggest an exception to this pattern.

In addition, apparently, if energy forms one finitely-existing thing, then transforms to form another finitely-existing thing, the energy's existence is constant before, during, between, and after the lifecycles of the finitely-existing things. If this series of transformations is considered in reverse-chronological order, the series seems most logically suggested to extend infinitely into the past, or in other words, the series seems to constitute infinite past existence. This seems to yield the infinitely-existing source of all other existence, which the Bible seems to also refer to as "God".

Response To http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html, comment tweetingreason June 14, 2016 at 11:04 AM.

Thank you for the comment "tweetingreason June 14, 2016 at 11:04 AM" on the SIDP website at http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/p/sidpmain.html. If I might mention, perhaps we might continue review of your perspective before beginning to review the SIDP presentation. To me, the concepts apparently addressed by your perspective seem possibly fundamental to our conversation.

Response To https://twitter.com/Tweeting_Reason/status/742676805702799361

I'm not sure that God as a scientifically-verified theory is the goal. My understanding of general consensus seems to be that there are multiple aspects of apparently accepted reality that science is unable to verify and test, such as black holes. The proposed source of all reality, including apparently unscientifically verifiable reality such as black holes, seems reasonably suggested to exist beyond the current verification and testability of human perception, even when aided by humanly-developed technology.

Perhaps accordingly, the basis for the proposed substantiation is not a new proposed observation that needs to be scientifically vetted, but seems to be apparently overlooked, yet most logical implications of already scientifically vetted observations, perhaps similarly to the way that the Law Of Conservation Of Mass seems to be the most logical implication of the Law Of Conservation Of Energy and Mass/Energy Equivalence (E=mc2). To me, as many times as one tests the logic of their confluence, the Law Of Conservation Of Mass seems to be the outcome. To me, the extent to which the Law Of Conservation Of Mass is also within the realm of scientific sensory verification seems to have lent it its own space in the scientific organon.

To me thus far, the SIDP presentation's proposed logical implications seem similarly, as readily, and as repeatedly tested with the same logically-derived results reached at each testing. If a reasoning flaw is identified or an equally likely or more likely logical outcome is identified and substantiated, then, perhaps, perhaps the proposal does not present the most logical implications of science's findings, otherwise, the proposal seems.

To me, the same seems appropriately suggested regarding the theory of evolution. To me, regardless of the number of fossils, fossil age calculations, pedigreed fossil and fossil age analysts, and fossil form similarities that are identified and proposed, the evolution of humans from single-celled organism seems incapable of being scientifically verified, since it seems appropriately categorized as a past event, and therefore beyond the scope of any scientific, observation-based test. The only aspect of the human evolution proposition that can be scientifically tested is the logical estimation processes via which the proposed conclusions have been drawn. To me, the logical estimation process that logically yields the Law Of Conservation Of Mass, and that yields the theory of evolution from otherwise inconclusive observation of physical evidence, seems to comprise the SIDP presentation. The apparent lack of a substantiated reasoning flaw in the SIDP presentation, or a stronger reasoning alternative seems to render the presentation not to have been debunked.

Response To https://twitter.com/CaptAtheism/status/742445750928343040

The comment seems to evoke the apparently age-old question of whether good or bad is normative. To me, systems' parts seem to typically work harmoniously together to achieve goals. To me, harmonious system operation seems generally considered good, and inharmonious system operation bad. To the extent that God is the infinitely-existent source of everything else, God seems reasonably described as the overarching system. Reality other than God seems reasonably described as an expression of God, and everything in reality seems to work harmoniously together except for apparently privileged, self-determination that replaces God as system authority. Accepting God as system authority, good seems simply defined as harmony with God, and evil seems to be disharmony with God. Apparently, therefore, harmony and its source and system authority, God, seem most logical described as good.

Response To https://twitter.com/FidemTurbare/status/742247311921709056

Upon what basis, if any, might Hindu thought suggest that multiple deities are called for? To me, the Bible and science seem to imply the infinitely-existing source of everything else. (a) might Hindu thought suggest such a source? (b) if so, might Hindu thought consider that source to be a multi-part point of reference, and (c) if so, why?

Response To https://twitter.com/MeckeringBoy/status/741990692596154373

Irrefutable evidence would seem to consist of asking God whether or not God had approved slavery or if humans had. To the extent that God's existence is not yet accepted, then surrounding context seems appropriately referenced for reasoned estimation. To me, that context seems to suggest that approval of slavery seems inconsistent with of (a) apparent lack of mention of slavery in Genesis 1-2 (God's apparently initial human experience context), (b) God's apparent guidance away from adverse social interaction in Genesis 4, and (c) God having just liberated the Hebrews from slavery. However, human disposition seems more likely than God's to have become acclimated to slavery and more likely to accept it if not on the receiving end of it.

Response To https://twitter.com/CrispySea/status/741888511880486914

I heard that food 2.5x world population needs currently exists. If so, to me, that seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God provided food for all. If humans misuse their apparently God-given privilege of the most advanced level of self-determination on Earth to replace God (as the human experience's primary administrator) with humans and establish an economic system that results in resource imbalances, who should logically be the focus of complaints, God or those who replaced reliance upon God with reliance upon humans for primary administration of the human experience?

Response To https://twitter.com/kimrg3/status/741692191920263168

To me, premise one of the Bible's apparent message seems to be that God exists. I seem to be able to demonstrate the attributes of God, as apparently described by the Bible, via science's findings and logical reasoning. Step one: might you agree that the Laws Of Conservation Of Energy and Mass (TLOCOE/TLOCOM) and Mass/Energy Equivalence (E=mc2) imply infinite past existence?

Response To https://twitter.com/calmAndRational/status/741663977189572608

FYI, I plan to attempt to falsify your statement. Would optimal human experience be achieved if a person who likes persistence in other people is persistent with someone who doesn't like persistence in other people?

Response To https://twitter.com/calmAndRational/status/741637122222915584

FYI, my hypothesis seems to be that, due to the limitations and fallibility of human perception, attempting to humanly define optimal human experience will lead to irreconcilable preferences. But perhaps, this line of questioning might demonstrate the apparent validity of that hypothesis. To resume, how does one identify the common good?

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.

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?

Response To https://twitter.com/The_Vagitarian/status/739605214177546241

Re: "only if you assume a god exists", apparently agreed. My comment presented the portion of my perspective that seems to support the premise "energy and god are not the same".

Re: "there is zero evidence in favor of the existence of a god or god-like being", what reasoning flaw might you perceive in the "Substantiation: God's Existence" essay section, and the "Substantiation: Key Attributes Of God" essay?

Response To https://twitter.com/The_Vagitarian/status/739601640601223169

If "our environment" refers to other of our species, this seems to assume that other of our species have developed the "be considerate" guideline. If we developed from non-sympathetic/empathetic life forms, what other of our species would we have observed practice sympathy and empathy?

Response To https://twitter.com/The_Vagitarian/status/739601139243450369

I seem to sense different usage of the phrase "social interest". Your usage seems to refer to the interest in interaction with that which is external to self. My usage seems to refer to interest in the well being of that which is external to self, contrasted with personal interest. My point seems to be that although interest in interaction seems innate, including vocalizing as a social communication system, interest in the well being of that which is external to self seems not to develop unless externally introduced, and seems to deteriorate unless externally reinforced.

Re: "We evolved empathy to survive as a species", many life forms seem reasonably suggested to survive without empathy. Upon what basis might you suggest that humans have needed empathy in order to survive as a species?

Response To https://twitter.com/The_Vagitarian/status/739600722832953345

Re: "energy and god are not the same", to me God seems reasonably suggested to be the point of reference that wields energy. Substantiation thereof seems to warrant its own discussion thread, however, one point a time. :)

Re "God is a figment of one's imagination", upon what basis might you suggest that to be the case?

Response To http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/response-to-httpsidpblogblogspotcompsid.html, comment Dean Esmay June 5, 2016 at 11:55 AM

I seem to have reached a few paragraphs in on "Sola Scriptura: In The Vanity Of Their Minds", when I seemed to sense such a great divide between (a) the God/human experience apparently depicted by that portion of the essay and (b) the God/human experience apparently depicted by Genesis 1-2.

To me, Genesis 1-2 seems intended to state, "Here is God's design for the human experience, where we were", including an apparently near-postscript in Genesis 2:25 that seems reasonably suggested to segue to Genesis 3's apparent statement, "Here's how we arrived at the adverse condition of the human experience where we are". To me, that initial human experience model consists of six concepts: God is in charge, enjoy, here's your and everything else's menu, "tend" to the garden, don't touch that tree, and here's your mate. To me, any God/human relationship concept beyond that seems reasonably considered a result of eventuality somewhat similar to Exodus 18, and that might have been initiated by other eventuality somewhat similar to Genesis 3.

Response To https://twitter.com/NewbornTight/status/739163261094875137

To me, science seems to suggest that reasoned planning and behavior is based upon perception of decision-critical conditions, and that human perception is limited and fallible. If decision-critical conditions exist outside of the scope of perception, or if perception is subject to error, reasoned behavior does not seem based upon the actual state of decision-critical conditions, but upon assumption of conditions outside the current scope of perception, and upon assumption of perceptual accuracy. To me, that assumption seems referred to as bestowing "faith", "trust", or "confidence", and seems to participate in all human reasoning.

Re: "How reliable is faith", to me, the issue does not seem to be how reliable faith is, but rather, how reliable the object of faith is. To me, the Bible, science's findings and history seem reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God is reliable and that humans are not reliable with regard to administration of the human experience, and perhaps especially, with regard to administration of the God/human relationship.

Response To https://twitter.com/AtheistEngineer/status/738490968161280000

However, perhaps similarly to math, "showing your work", when compared to solely presenting an answer, seems to involve more detail and accommodative resources apparently key to demonstrating the reasoning upon which an answer is based.

Response To https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738405515793977346

To me, appropriate faith does not seem to "close the door on doubt that one needs". To me, Bible, science and history seem to suggest that both faith and doubt seem important to the human experience in its apparently adverse condition. The key issue seems to be when, and in what, to have doubt and faith. To me, this discussion seems focused upon the basis for the suggestion that God is optimally the sole, logical focus of constant faith.

In addition, the concept of "looking out of one's comfortable box" seems to warrant clarification. Might you consider the phrase to refer to appropriate desire for growth? If so, to me, the Bible seems to suggest that God has always advocated human experience growth (Genesis 1:28-31). A key issue seems to be whether all human experience growth is appropriate. The debate seems focused upon the Bible's apparent suggestion that not all human experience growth is appropriate, that God is the ultimate determiner thereregarding, and that humans optimally have faith in God's real-time guidance (not human guidance purportedly on God's behalf) regarding experiential growth that is appropriate.

Response To https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738404594145976320

To me, science seems to suggest that as humans, the concept of faith is intrinsic to the human experience, since human perception seems scientifically considered both limited and fallible. Apparently therefore, in order to form any reasoned assertion, faith must be exercised in the complete reception of significantly relevant data, and in the correct interpretation of that perceived data. To me, science and history seem to suggest that said faith is often unfounded. Apparently, therefore, the phenomenon of faith does not seem logically suggested to constitute the premise flaw that your comment seems to suggest it does.

Perhaps more importantly, the Bible seems to demonstrate a pattern of provision of sufficient evidence upon which to base subsequent faith. That phenomenon also seems central to the human experience, since both education and any reasoned relationship seems to employ that pattern.

To further distinguish between the apparently Biblically-described contexts of faith, to me, the Bible seems to suggest that, the "when times get tough, have more faith" credo might be inappropriate where faith in any point of reference other than God is concerned, including humans, even with regard to human attempt to administrate the apparently Biblically-proposed God/human relationship.

I do not seem to be proposing faith in limited-and fallible-perception humans, but in an omniscient, supremely benevolent point of reference whose existence seems substantiated by science's findings. The outcomes seem logically suggested to be, respectively, undesirable and desirable.

Response To Response at https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738335734952787968.

To me, my comments do not seem to suggest the ignorance of those who trust in evidence. To clarify, my suggestion seems to present three of science's related findings that seem to substantiate God's apparently Biblically-suggested existence. Your response thereto seems to switch topics from the presented evidence to trends in religious perspectives of scientists. I seem to have respectfully followed the shift to demonstrate via reasoning that the suggested trend does not seem to logically detract from mine.

. Your most recent point seems to shift focus to the potential ignorance of those who trust in evidence. I seem to have responded to that shift via this clarification.

If I might respectfully suggest, however, I seem to have presented evidence, apparently consisting of science's findings and related reasoning.

Response To https://twitter.com/AtheistEngineer/status/738335688937119744

To me, two possible clarifications seem reasonably proposed: (a) the Bible does not seem to suggest that God's existence is "beyond the realm of nature", but that God is the infinitely-existent establisher of "nature". (b) the Bible seems to suggest that God's existence seems beyond the suggested humanly-perceived and understood subset of "nature". However, I seem to recall suggestion that many aspects of modern science were hypothesized before being perceived and subsequently accepted as "scientific fact". If so, lack of human perceptual verification or inclusion within the scientific organon does not seem to reasonably preclude the factuality of a premise. Apparently, therefore, "supernatural" as a label seems to offer no value to analysis of the apparently Biblically-proposed existence of God.

. The SIDP presentation seems to base its substantiation of God's apparently Biblically-suggested existence upon three apparent findings of science. What flaw in that reasoning might you perceive?

Response To https://twitter.com/godsven3loquist/status/738335345520050176

Assuming (a) "the same justification" refers to my presented substantiation for God's existence, (b) my presented substantiation for God's existence seems to focus upon apparent Bible and science reference to the source of all other reality, (c) I don't seem aware of unicorns being suggested to be the source of all other reality, the apparently reason-unsubstantiated rebuttal to which this post responds seems clearly false, and seems to illustrate the apparent benefit of reason-substantiated response. Might you be interested in presenting reason-substantiated response?

Response To https://twitter.com/Clergy211/status/738093883767193600

Assuming appropriate respect for differing perspective, and assuming that (a) "impeccable moral compass" means "infallible discernment of right and wrong", and that (b) humans have limited, fallible perception, including in the area of right/wrong discernment, what might you mean by "impeccable moral compass"?

Response To https://twitter.com/Clergy211/status/738083898152783872

To me, to the extent that the God/human relationship seems reasonably suggested to be as unique as the individuals within those relationships, and to the extent that God considers interaction between those individuals to be optimal, perception by each such individual of that which God knows is optimal with regard to other individuals' relationship with God seems desirable.

Response To https://twitter.com/Atheist_sausage/status/737941150380785664

To me, the issue seems to be the consequence of disagreement between two human (and apparently therefore, equally authoritative) "persons of authority" with conflicting goals due to conflicting perspective. To me, logic seems to suggest that their conflict seems to have no resolution but the intuitive decision to yield or to attempt to force the other to yield. In either case, logic does not seem to render either intuituve choice to necessarily yield the optimal outcome.