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.