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.

Response To https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Dreamer/status/737739615629676544

In addition to the response at http://sidpblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/attributing-human-failings-to-god.html, to me, Adam and Eve's Genesis 3 experience might not be of small consequence, since it seems suggested to have introduced the sequence of adversities that has at least contributed to the horrors of the human experience for which so many seem to criticize God.

Response To https://twitter.com/Isaacharrop75/status/737708368958226433

Re: "moon as light", to me, Genesis 1 doesn't seem intended to serve as a technical science manual, but rather, as background information establishing (for the reader) God as creator and sovereign authority over reality, including the human experience.

With relevance to the human experience, the moon seems to function as a "night light". Perhaps the moon's reflection of light, rather than emission of light, isn't material to that point.

Re: "People living to 1000", I seem to recall suggestion that human life span has varied significantly over time, perhaps due to factors including lifestyle and environmental conditions, with revolutionary era lifespans seeming to have been in the 20s-30s, and contemporary lifespans seeming to reach over 100, an apparently five-fold increase. To me, suggestion seems reasonable that lifestyle and environmental conditions during proposed 1000-year-lifespan eras might have been sufficiently less deteriorative to human health and longevity to facilitate such lifespans, since many apparently-suggested health-damaging conditions seem suggested to have been brought on by human innovation.

Re: "Johnah inside the fish's stomach", a brief Google scan seems to reveal multiple non-Biblical accounts of sea creatures swallowing humans whole.

Re: "Talking donkey", to me, the sole logic that comes to mind is that of God's apparently Biblically-suggested sovereignty over all existence, perhaps establishing anomalies at God's apparently Biblically-suggested, omniscient discretion. Perhaps God simply gave the donkey temporary ability to communicate verbally.

Response To https://twitter.com/ZachsMind/status/737307871944134657

Apparently, much to reply to.

1) Re: "Brevity is the soul of wit. Next time just keep it to Twitter", I seem to have been interested in analytical discussion, rather than wit, hence the comment length. I typically maintain Twitter-initiated conversation on Twitter unless length seems to render it impractical, in which case, I post on Twitter a link to the outboard comment resource. That practice seems somewhat common.

2) Re: "That reads as suspicious double talk", how might "Doubting God's guidance seems to cause human experience problems, and God seems to provide sufficient basis upon which to base faith" constitute "double-talk"?

3) Re: "There is a dependence on the god concept. However, there is no objective evidence of the existence of the god", laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy and Mass/Energy Equivalence seem to provide that evidence. Reality seems to be a closed system, conservation seems to constitute constant existence, which in regression seems to constitute infinite past existence. If energy is suggested to be the fundamental component of all other reality, then energy seems reasonably suggested to be the source of all other reality. In summary, energy seems suggested to be the infinitely-existing source of all other reality. The Bible seems to suggest such a point of reference via the name "God".

4) Re: "Even at the beginning of Genesis. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." This is a given. This is a presupposition. God's already there. There's no explanation for the creation of a god, as it's presumed he's eternal. Then it presumes he created the universe, giving the universe a beginning.", to me, the same seems precisely suggested regarding time-space. The sole difference seems to be in choice of name, and the apparently substantiate-able characteristics of God such as omniscience and omnipotence.

5) Regarding the suggested debunking of certain of the Bible's assertions, I don't claim to know whether the Bible's anecdotes are intended to be considered factual or allegorical, however, I seem to have identified basis upon which to consider multiple, challenged Bible assertions to be scientifically viable. To the extent that both substantiation and refutation of those apparent Bible assertions seem no more irrefutable than estimation, and the extent to which those estimations seem subject to human error, and the extent to which such estimation error seems undetectable via actual confirmation, to me, the conflicting claims seem appropriately dismissed from analytical debate. Either side seems capable of claiming the personal incredulity of the other side with regard to proposed evidence.

Response To https://twitter.com/TruthTeamOne/status/737172606827139074

My current interest in cosmology seems to be the extent to which it might attest to the apparently Biblically-suggested existence of God as a testament-in-turn to the Bible's apparently-suggested model for optimal human experience.

At this point, I seem to have presented the suggestion that Energy/Mass Equivalence/Conservation yields constant existence. Might you agree?

Response To https://twitter.com/PhoenixThis/status/737038414663585792

Firstly, a perspective: to the extent that God is the establisher of reality, "God did it" seems logically applicable to all reality, apparently including that which humans claim to understand. However, if your point does not assume God as the source of all else, then I seem to agree that logic seems to suggest that "I don't know how", by itself, seems to neither specify nor rule out God as the explanation.

Response To https://twitter.com/PhoenixThis/status/737007479364718592

Firstly, my discussion experience seems to suggest that the term "supernatural" might essentially refer to "that whose suggested existence seems to contradict the humanly-perceived patterns of existence". To me, the extent to which human recognition of reality's patterns is accepted as not being exhaustive seems to leave logical potential for such actual existence. Apparently, as a result, the concept "supernatural" seems to have little place in logical analysis of existence and non-existence, including with regard to the existence of God. Apparently, God either does or does not exist.

That said, the SIDP link seems to propose substantiation of God's existence via three of science's findings and their apparently most logical implications. Might you be interested in presenting the reasoning flaw(s) you might perceive in the proposed substantiation?