DAVID: ...I will repeat the comments I have made before about the universe and what its makeup might mean. We don't know what it came from but cause and effect strongly suggest it is energy, since the universe is at its simplest forms of energy. 
We have agreed on that. The disagreement is over whether that energy is conscious.-DAVID: I have said that perhaps it has to be this big in order to create the special galaxy which is the Milky Way, one of the largest galaxies known. The galaxy must be big, so the Earth can be in the safer outer reaches away from the Black Hole and the severe radiation activity nearer to the center. -But why did there have to be a black hole? See later. -DAVID: (We are 2/3rds out on the second spiral arm. To have life (which I believe is the purpose of the universe) it requires a special planet just like the Earth with all the metals and minerals we find here. [...]-Yes indeed, life as we know it requires the conditions we know. If your starting point is God, then that's how God made it (or had to make it), and if your starting point is no-God, then that's how it happened. Easy so far, but watch out, here comes trouble...-DAVID: Our sun will explode in 5 billion years. So humans on this planet are limited to somewhat less than that time. Since the universe is so large and evolving, another Milky Way with an Earth could develop and God's next experiment in humans could begin. In fact it might already be developing. We can only know our circumstances.-The same problem as with your concept of evolution: does your God plan and control the environment? If the large universe is evolving and another Milky Way and Earth “could develop”, you have a purposeless drift and a lucky break. So up to there, you are with the atheists. Then your God intervenes, whereas they opt for another lucky break. If he plans and controls it, you are once again stuck with your problem of the billions of galaxies, not to mention that nasty black hole, all for the sake of you and me.
 
DAVID: There, I've ruminated on the giant size of the universe. I see purpose where you struggle with it. As Paul Davies points out, the appearance of sentient beings who can study the universe and understand its workings, is a highly significant event. And I would add high unlikely due to chance.-Thank you for your ruminations. I agree 100% with you and Paul Davies, but of course it doesn't need God to make our appearance highly significant, and while I agree that chance is highly unlikely, it seems to me no more unlikely than the concept of an eternal mind that encompasses billions of galaxies.-DAVID: I've not closed my eyes to the dilemma of why the universe is like it is, but have chosen to concentrate on the appearance of life, which I think is easier to analyze from the point of view of teleology. 'How' is what you seem to concentrate on, not 'why' as I do. I think that is our difference.-Your starting point is the assumption of teleology, and of course it is easier to find design in the appearance of life than in the possibly infinite, seemingly pointless comings and goings of billions of galaxies and zillions of stars. It is not the ‘how' that I focus on, but the question of whether there is a ‘why'.

I put dhw's comment in bold. dhw want to know why God made the universe so big. I have just found a scientific answer from Michael Denton:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-denton-the-miracle-of-man/

"Some ask how the almost immeasurable size of the universe fits into what might appear to be this rather tidy teleological view. As it turns out, however, even the most distant galaxies influence the inertia of earthly bodies! As Denton writes, “The existence of beings of our size and mass with the ability to stand, to move, and to light a fire is only possible because of the influence of the most distant galaxies, whose collective mass determines the precise strength of the inertial forces on earth.'”

And later:

"The human brain, for its part, performs 1015 synaptic operations per second and may be “the most complex functional assemblage of matter possible in our universe,” according to Denton.

"These are stunning ensembles in themselves, but they become even more so when one considers that they must be synchronized with features like the size of the Earth, its atmosphere, its hydrological cycle, and its soils, along with a staggering number of other variables.

"Denton concludes with a Biblical like paean to man: “Our destiny was inscribed in the light of the stars and the property of atoms since the beginning. All of nature sings the song of man. We now know what medieval scholars only believed, that the underlying rationality of nature is indeed ‘manifest in human flesh.'’”

Denton has given us an answer to satisfy dhw's question. I can state the universe is at its necessary size.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universes-fate-rests-on-the-hubble-const...

"A burst of gravitational waves from the merger of two black holes is one piece of the new method for calculating the Hubble constant. Not unlike standard candles, binary black hole systems oscillate. As they spiral into each other, the frequency of the gravitational waves they spew out changes at a rate correlated to the system’s size. From this, astronomers derive the waves’ intrinsic amplitude. And by comparing that with their apparent amplitude (similar to a comparison of the actual brightness of a Cepheid with its apparent brightness), they compute how far away the system is. Astronomers call these “standard sirens.” The measured the distance to this particular collision as some 540 megaparsecs, or about 1.8 billion light-years, from Earth.

"An associated redshift, such as that of the sirens’ host galaxy, provides the second piece of the new method. The researchers used redshift data from the Dark Energy Survey, which just finished mapping a portion of the southern sky more broadly and deeply than any previous survey. The redshift data combined with the distance measurement provided researchers with their new figure for the constant.

"Antonella Palmese, a research associate at Fermilab and co-author of the study, says the method holds promise in part because black hole mergers are relatively plentiful. Although it is still a proof of concept, she says that as more gravitational events from LIGO/VIRGO become available, the statistics will improve. University of Oxford astronomer Elisa Chisari, who was not involved in the study, agrees. “The level of constraints that they obtained on the Hubble rate is not competitive at the moment compared to other measurements,” she says. “But as LIGO builds up its catalogue of gravitational wave events in the coming years, then by combining multiple events, this will really become a competitive method.”

Comment: It would be nice to have agreeing methods. We will better understand the future of the universe

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-galaxies-physics-cosmic-expansion.html

"A new study, led by Guido Risaliti of Università di Firenze, Italy, and Elisabeta Lusso of Durham University, UK, points to another type of cosmic tracer – quasars – that would fill part of the gap between these observations, measuring the expansion of the universe up to 12 billion years ago.

"Quasars are the cores of galaxies where an active supermassive black hole is pulling in matter from its surroundings at very intense rates, shining brightly across the electromagnetic spectrum. As material falls onto the black hole, it forms a swirling disc that radiates in visible and ultraviolet light; this light, in turn, heats up nearby electrons, generating X-rays.

***

"Astronomical sources whose properties allow us to gauge their distances are referred to as 'standard candles'.

"The most notable class, known as 'type-Ia' supernova, consists of the spectacular demise of white dwarf stars after they have over-filled on material from a companion star, generating explosions of predictable brightness that allows astronomers to pinpoint the distance. Observations of these supernovas in the late 1990s revealed the universe's accelerated expansion over the last few billion years.

***

"Digging into the XMM-Newton archive, they collected X-ray data for over 7000 quasars, combining them with ultraviolet observations from the ground-based Sloan Digital Sky Survey. They also used a new set of data, specially obtained with XMM-Newton in 2017 to look at very distant quasars, observing them as they were when the universe was only about two billion years old. Finally, they complemented the data with a small number of even more distant quasars and with some relatively nearby ones, observed with NASA's Chandra and Swift X-ray observatories, respectively.

"'Such a large sample enabled us to scrutinise the relation between X-ray and ultraviolet emission of quasars in painstaking detail, which greatly refined our technique to estimate their distance," says Guido.

"The new XMM-Newton observations of distant quasars are so good that the team even identified two different groups: 70 percent of the sources shine brightly in low-energy X-rays, while the remaining 30 percent emit lower amounts of X-rays that are characterised by higher energies. For the further analysis, they only kept the earlier group of sources, in which the relation between X-ray and ultraviolet emission appears clearer.

***

"After skimming through the data and bringing the sample down to about 1600 quasars, the astronomers were left with the very best observations, leading to robust estimates of the distance to these sources that they could use to investigate the universe's expansion.

"When we combine the quasar sample, which spans almost 12 billion years of cosmic history, with the more local sample of type-Ia supernovas, covering only the past eight billion years or so, we find similar results in the overlapping epochs," says Elisabeta.

***

"'However, in the earlier phases that we can only probe with quasars, we find a discrepancy between the observed evolution of the universe and what we would predict based on the standard cosmological model."

"Looking into this previously poorly explored period of cosmic history with the help of quasars, the astronomers have revealed a possible tension in the standard model of cosmology, which might require the addition of extra parameters to reconcile the data with theory.

"'One of the possible solutions would be to invoke an evolving dark energy, with a density that increases as time goes by," says Guido.

"Incidentally, this particular model would also alleviate another tension that has kept cosmologists busy lately, concerning the Hubble constant – the current rate of cosmic expansion. This discrepancy was found between estimates of the Hubble constant in the local universe, based on supernova data – and, independently, on galaxy clusters – and those based on Planck's observations of the cosmic microwave background in the early universe.

Comment: This should help in getting a finer measurement of the Hubble Constant and how it has sped up during the life of the universe. Hopefully dark matter may be better understood.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-galaxies-physics-cosmic-expansion.html#jCp

dhw: I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.
DAVID: You have missed the point I presented. It took time in the evolution of the universe for the elements that support life to develop. In that time the universe expanded to be huge. Vastness is a necessary component of the result.
dhw: Yes, we know it took time for the elements that support life to develop. And yes, we know the universe is huge, whether it expanded or not. But that does not mean the universe had to be huge for the life-supporting elements to develop. None of the other references you produced argued that the hugeness was necessary. Even Wallace said “may be”.

DAVID: I set out to see whether hugeness was a vital component of fine tuning. It turns out to be concomitant.

dhw: If by concomitant you mean that it took time for life-supporting elements to develop and the universe is huge, fair enough. If you mean that the universe had to be huge for life-supporting elements to develop, no such cause-and-effect relationship has been established, so it’s still "maybe" (and therefore maybe not), as per Wallace et al.

The first sentence above is agreed. It is what I meant.

DAVID: I set out to see whether hugeness was a vital component of fine tuning. It turns out to be concomitant.

If by concomitant you mean that it took time for life-supporting elements to develop and the universe is huge, fair enough. If you mean that the universe had to be huge for life-supporting elements to develop, no such cause-and-effect relationship has been established, so it’s still "maybe" (and therefore maybe not), as per Wallace et al.

dhw: I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.

DAVID: You have missed the point I presented. It took time in the evolution of the universe for the elements that support life to develop. In that time the universe expanded to be huge. Vastness is a necessary component of the result.

dhw: Yes, we know it took time for the elements that support life to develop. And yes, we know the universe is huge, whether it expanded or not. But that does not mean the universe had to be huge for the life-supporting elements to develop. None of the other references you produced argued that the hugeness was necessary. Even Wallace said “may be”.

I set out to see whether hugeness was a vital component of fine tuning. It turns out to be concomitant. Another replaced entry.

DAVID: You have missed the point I presented. It took time in the evolution of the universe for the elements that support life to develop. In that time the universe expanded to be huge. Vastness is a necessary component of the result.

Yes, we know it took time for the elements that support life to develop. And yes, we know the universe is huge, whether it expanded or not. But that does not mean the universe had to be huge for the life-supporting elements to develop. None of the other references you produced argued that the hugeness was necessary. Even Wallace said “may be”.

dhw: I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.

You have missed the point I presented. It took time in the evolution of the universe for the elements that support life to develop. In that time the universe expanded to be huge. Vastness is a necessary component of the result. That is the connection and the result of the energy of the Big Bang causing the expansion. The question of the expansion itself is that some scientists do not accept the concept of inflation because its cause is unknown. On the other side inflation fits the findings which is a bastardized way of supporting the concept.

dhw: Until we discover how life originated, whether there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe, what sort of forms they are, what is the actual nature of the universe, whether it is limited, and also whether it is true that it is expanding*** (I have always questioned the Big Bang theory), it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. Wallace’s “may be necessary” is as far as one can go, and every theory related to the origin of life is a “may be” – including the existence of God.
*** Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study ...
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

DAVID: Interesting outlier study, with the redshift reasoning unexplained, and the vastness of the universe also unexplained by their theory. Brightness has always been a problem in figuring out astronomical distances. We are beyond 'standard candle' studies such as this inept one uses. They object to supernova studies which make expansion much clearer?

I am in no position to debate the issue. I do know, however, that these are not the only scientists to question the whole concept of expansion. This was merely one point among several to explain why it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. I presume you now agree.

dhw:
*** Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study ...
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

David: Interesting outlier study, with the redshift reasoning unexplained, and the vastness of the universe also unexplained by their theory. Brightness has always been a problem in figuring out astronomical distances. We are beyond 'standard candle' studies such as this inept one uses. They object to supernova studies which make expansion much clearer?

Here is a new measurement for cosmic distances as the universe expands:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2124950-cosmological-ruler-could-help-us-get-the-m...

"Currently, astronomers measure distances by taking advantage of the fact that the distribution of galaxies throughout the universe fluctuates in predictable ways, a relic of sound waves that echoed through the early universe.

"In its infancy, the universe was a hot soup of matter that was distributed in a mostly uniform fashion, with a few dense spots of dark matter. About 30,000 years after the big bang, gravity made normal matter collapse around those dense spots, but pressure from photons caused it to rebound outward again. This cosmic bounce created acoustic waves, called baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), that expanded outwards in a spherical shape and carried normal matter with them.

"These waves kept expanding until the cooling of the universe halted their progress, freezing each of them at roughly the same point in their expansion. The resulting dense patches of matter at the edge of the waves and their points of origin were more likely to form galaxies, creating a lasting imprint of the acoustic waves that rang out in the early universe.

“'All our galaxies are close to the surface of these spherical shells or their centre,” says Glenn Starkman at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio.
Because each of these spherical shells is the same size, astrophysicists use the distance between a central galaxy cluster and galaxy clusters at the edge of the wave – about 500 million light years – as a kind of cosmological ruler.

"But it isn’t perfect: as the universe aged, this neat structuring of galaxies blurred as gravity and magnetic fields pulled galaxies in different directions. That means that to use the technique mathematical models are needed to make a series of assumptions about how galaxies have shifted over time. Some BAO distances could be spot on, but others are off by several per cent, and there is no way to tell which ones are which.

"Now, Starkman and his colleagues have come up with a ruler that sidesteps the need for these assumptions. Instead of following the galaxies’ motions, the team measure distance relative to an unmoving mathematical midpoint in the BAOs called the linear point. Starkman says the technique is up to four times more accurate than existing methods.

"Being able to measure very large cosmological distances is critical to understanding the nature of dark energy, says Will Percival at the University of Portsmouth in the UK. But while using the linear point appears to reduce the number of errors in estimating cosmological distances, he says, it’s not yet clear whether using it will yield more precise measurements than existing methods.

"For more precise measurements, we will have to wait for the results of future galaxy surveys such as the European Space Agency’s Euclid mission, which will observe areas of the universe that aren’t polluted by light from the Milky Way. The data from these surveys will be at least 10 times more precise than existing surveys, Percival says, and will provide a good opportunity to test whether the proposed cosmological ruler is better than current measurements."

Comment: For most universe expansion is undoubted, and measurements are improving. At least we are beyond Cepheid stars as the only measure of distance.

DAVID’s comment: The article makes the point that with inflation the universe became vast before the time arrived when carbon and the metal were formed that support life. It took much time to have carbon appear in stars which then had to age and explode and spread the carbon around. The vastness is due to the slow evolution of the necessary elements for life to appear. Simple concept. Still no answer to multiple humans colonies concept. Could be. Vastness required!

dhw: Until we discover how life originated, whether there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe, what sort of forms they are, what is the actual nature of the universe, whether it is limited, and also whether it is true that it is expanding*** (I have always questioned the Big Bang theory), it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. Wallace’s “may be necessary” is as far as one can go, and every theory related to the origin of life is a “may be” – including the existence of God.

*** Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study ...
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

Interesting outlier study, with the redshift reasoning unexplained, and the vastness of the universe also unexplained by their theory. Brightness has always been a problem in figuring out astronomical distances. We are beyond 'standard candle' studies such as this inept one uses. They object to supernova studies which make expansion much clearer?

QUOTE: Carter was not the first to invoke some form of the anthropic principle. In fact, the evolutionary biologist Alfred Russel Wallace anticipated the anthropic principle as long ago as 1904: "Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required [...] in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man."

“May have been…” Alternatively, may not have been.

QUOTE: In 1957, Robert Dicke wrote: "The age of the Universe 'now' is not random but conditioned by biological factors [...] [changes in the values of the fundamental constants of physics] would preclude the existence of man to consider the problem."

Why should we assume that the fundamental constants of physics require billions and billions of solar systems extant and extinct? See below for more unanswered questions.

QUOTE: Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:
The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.

A nicely balanced summary of the conflicting views, with the second choice requiring a theory we do not have.

DAVID’s comment: The article makes the point that with inflation the universe became vast before the time arrived when carbon and the metal were formed that support life. It took much time to have carbon appear in stars which then had to age and explode and spread the carbon around. The vastness is due to the slow evolution of the necessary elements for life to appear. Simple concept. Still no answer to multiple humans colonies concept. Could be. Vastness required!

Until we discover how life originated, whether there are other forms of life elsewhere in the universe, what sort of forms they are, what is the actual nature of the universe, whether it is limited, and also whether it is true that it is expanding*** (I have always questioned the Big Bang theory), it is patently absurd to state that the vastness is necessary. Wallace’s “may be necessary” is as far as one can go, and every theory related to the origin of life is a “may be” – including the existence of God.

*** Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study ...
www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

DAVID: dhw has recently again questioned the vastness of the universe as it relates to the appearance of humans. I have found such a reference, but so far cannot locate any support for the contention in the copious material I know:
http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/03/08/life-beyond-thulcandra/

QUOTE: "God might indeed decide to make life on earth a unique case, and the vastness of a cosmos uninhabited by other physical beings a matter for himself alone. Indeed, one of the intriguing aspects of cosmic fine tuning is the realisation that a vast universe is necessary to enable the conditions a tiny inhabited world like ours requires. God’s prodigality in doing so much for us would make as plausible, and inconclusive, a case. Yet Chalmers once more shows that extraterrestrial life poses no inherent problem whatsoever for Christianity. Neither, though, does a universe in which life is unique to the earth – a situation (presently the only one for which actual evidence exists) that in contrast poses a big problem for metaphysical naturalism." (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: the overall intent of the article is to discuss whether Christians can accept more than one colony of humans in God's universe. It appears they can. However, what I found interesting is the contention that part of the fine tuning observations is the requirement for vastness of the universe. That vastness is required is implied in he multiverse theories, but that dos not prove the point. I will pursue it.

As I said before, the uniqueness of life on Earth would reduce the odds against chance, and it is absurd to insist that your God would have confined his life experiments to one blob in infinity. Why it has to be humans elsewhere I do not know, other than what Shapiro calls “large organs chauvinism”. As for the observation that the vastness of the universe is required for life, how the heck does anyone know? Has the author tried and definitively failed to create life without the billions and billions of solar systems extant and extinct? There is and can be no evidence for such a statement, so why make it, and indeed why take it seriously?

The vastness has to be taken seriously as in the Wikipedia article I found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Carter was not the first to invoke some form of the anthropic principle. In fact, the evolutionary biologist Alfred Russel Wallace anticipated the anthropic principle as long ago as 1904: "Such a vast and complex universe as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required [...] in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man." In 1957, Robert Dicke wrote: "The age of the Universe 'now' is not random but conditioned by biological factors [...] [changes in the values of the fundamental constants of physics] would preclude the existence of man to consider the problem."

***

Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:
The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.

Comment: The article makes the point that with inflation the universe became vast before the time arrived when carbon and the metal were formed that support life. It took much time to have carbon appear in stars which then had to age and explode and spread the carbon around. The vastness is due to the slow evolution of the necessary elements for life to appear. Simple concept. Still no answer to multiple humans colonies concept. Could be. Vastness required!

QUOTE: "God might indeed decide to make life on earth a unique case, and the vastness of a cosmos uninhabited by other physical beings a matter for himself alone. Indeed, one of the intriguing aspects of cosmic fine tuning is the realisation that a vast universe is necessary to enable the conditions a tiny inhabited world like ours requires. God’s prodigality in doing so much for us would make as plausible, and inconclusive, a case. Yet Chalmers once more shows that extraterrestrial life poses no inherent problem whatsoever for Christianity. Neither, though, does a universe in which life is unique to the earth – a situation (presently the only one for which actual evidence exists) that in contrast poses a big problem for metaphysical naturalism." (David's bold)

DAVID’s comment: the overall intent of the article is to discuss whether Christians can accept more than one colony of humans in God's universe. It appears they can. However, what I found interesting is the contention that part of the fine tuning observations is the requirement for vastness of the universe. That vastness is required is implied in he multiverse theories, but that dos not prove the point. I will pursue it.

As I said before, the uniqueness of life on Earth would reduce the odds against chance, and it is absurd to insist that your God would have confined his life experiments to one blob in infinity. Why it has to be humans elsewhere I do not know, other than what Shapiro calls “large organs chauvinism”. As for the observation that the vastness of the universe is required for life, how the heck does anyone know? Has the author tried and definitively failed to create life without the billions and billions of solar systems extant and extinct? There is and can be no evidence for such a statement, so why make it, and indeed why take it seriously?

http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/03/08/life-beyond-thulcandra/

"God might indeed decide to make life on earth a unique case, and the vastness of a cosmos uninhabited by other physical beings a matter for himself alone. Indeed, one of the intriguing aspects of cosmic fine tuning is the realisation that a vast universe is necessary to enable the conditions a tiny inhabited world like ours requires. God’s prodigality in doing so much for us would make as plausible, and inconclusive, a case. Yet Chalmers once more shows that extraterrestrial life poses no inherent problem whatsoever for Christianity. Neither, though, does a universe in which life is unique to the earth – a situation (presently the only one for which actual evidence exists) that in contrast poses a big problem for metaphysical naturalism." (my bold)

Comment: the overall intent of the article is to discuss whether Christians can accept more than one colony of humans in God's universe. It appears they can. However, what I found interesting is the contention that part of the fine tuning observations is the requirement for vastness of the universe. That vastness is required is implied in he multiverse theories, but that dos not prove the point. I will pursue it.

dhw: First cause, yes. But there does NOT have to be a chain of events that avoids chance. Your atheist will tell you that there has to be a chain of events that avoids the invention of a sourceless, invisible, supernatural, unknowable supermind that creates and controls billions and billions of solar systems and also shows the weaverbird how to build its nest. First cause, then, he will argue, MUST be the billions and billions of mindless material bodies and processes that eventually chance to produce life on Earth. No, I don't believe it either. But it is no more fantastic than the God theory.-You have presented two fantastic theories. I favor one. You mention the other. Is there a third way? If not only one of the two is correct. Logic tells me it is mine.


> dhw: Reason and science have certainly taken you part of the way, which is why I have such admiration for your research into the complexities of life and for the two books in which you argue so persuasively for design. But I see no trace of reason or science in your vision of an eternally conscious, sourceless mind that creates, encompasses and controls billions of solar systems, and preprogrammes or supervises the weaverbird's construction of its nest, all for the purpose of producing humans. -We are back to first cause. There has to be a chain of events that avoids chance. Only design is left. Therefore there MUST be a planning mind.