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.