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.