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.