https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2024/02/avicenna-aquinas-and-leibniz-on.html#more

"Avicenna, Aquinas, and Leibniz all present versions of what would today be called the argument from contingency for the existence of a divine necessary being.

"Avicenna
At least one thing exists. It has to be either necessary or contingent. If it’s necessary, then there’s a necessary being, and our conclusion is established. But suppose it is contingent. Then it requires a cause. Suppose that cause is a further contingent thing, and that that further contingent thing has yet another contingent thing as its own cause, and so on to infinity. Then we have a collection of contingent things. That collection will itself be either necessary or contingent. But it can’t be necessary, since its existence is contingent on the existence of its members. So, the collection must be contingent, and in that case it too must have a cause. That cause is either itself a part of the collection, or it is outside it. But it can’t be part of the collection, because if it were, then as cause of the whole collection, it would be the cause of itself. And nothing can cause itself. So, the cause of the collection of contingent things must be outside the collection. But if it is outside that collection, it must be necessary. So, there is a necessary being.

"Aquinas
Some things are contingent in nature, as is evident from the fact that they come into existence and go out of existence...So, if everything was contingent, then at some point nothing would have existed. But if there was ever a time when nothing existed, then nothing would exist now, since there would in that case be nothing around to cause new things to come into existence. But things do exist now. So, not everything can be contingent, and there must be a necessary being. Now, such a thing might derive its necessity from another thing, or it might have its necessity of its own nature. But there couldn’t be a regress of things deriving their necessity from something else unless it terminates in something having its necessity of its own nature. So, there must be something which has its necessity of its own nature.

"Leibniz
For anything that exists, there must be a sufficient reason for its existence. In the case of the contingent things that make up the universe, this cannot be found by appealing merely to other contingent things, even if the series of contingent things being caused by other contingent things extended backward into the past without beginning. For in that case, we would still need a sufficient reason why the series as a whole exists... So, the explanation cannot lie in the series itself. A complete explanation or sufficient reason can be found only if there is a necessary being that is the source of the world of contingent things. So, there must be such a necessary being.

"Each of these thinkers goes on to argue that it can be shown that the necessary being must have the key divine attributes, and therefore is God.

***

"What do the arguments have in common? First, they all rest, of course, on the distinction between contingent beings and necessary beings, and argue that it cannot be that everything falls into the former class. Second, they all reason causally to the necessary being as the source of everything other than itself. Third, for that reason, they all have at least a minimal empirical component insofar as they appeal to the contingent things we know through experience and argue from their existence to that of a necessary being.

***

"A...similarity is that each of the arguments moves from a claim about contingent things considered individually to a claim about contingent things considered collectively, albeit in different ways. For Avicenna, just as an individual contingent thing requires a cause, so too does the totality of contingent things require a cause. For Aquinas, just as individual contingent things must fail to exist at some point, so too must the collection of contingent things fail to exist at some point, at least if there were no necessary being. For Leibniz, just as individual contingent things require an explanation outside them, so too does the collection of contingent things require an explanation outside it.

***

"Avicenna’s and Aquinas’s arguments essentially consider reality under the guise of the transcendental attribute of being. The being of contingent things, they argue, must derive causally from the being of something that exists in an absolutely necessary way. Leibniz’s argument, by contrast, essentially considers reality under the transcendental attribute of truth. The intelligibility of contingent things, he argues, presupposes a necessary being which is intelligible in itself rather than by reference to something else.

***

"Any...differences between the three arguments seem to me to reflect these three fundamental differences. And the differences are important, both because they capture different aspects of reality, and because they entail that some objections that might seem to have force against one version of the argument from contingency will not necessarily apply to other versions."

Comment: It is all still cause and effect. To explain why we are here, there must be a first cause, and per ID it is way too complex for chance. The "attributes of God" are all the same untold version in this article.

https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/benefits-of-viruses

Why would an all-powerful, all-loving God create a world with viruses?

"Known Benefits of Viruses
Essential for complex life. Life-forms on Earth larger and more complex than microbes would be impossible without abundant diverse viruses. If not for these viruses, bacteria would multiply and quickly occupy every niche and cranny on Earth’s surface. Earth would become a giant bacterial slime ball. Those sextillions of bacteria would consume all the resources essential for life. All life, including all the bacteria, would die.

"Bacterial population check. Viruses kill and break apart bacteria at just-right rates in just-right locations to maintain a population and diversity of bacteria that is optimal for both the bacteria and for all other life-forms. We wouldn’t be here without viruses!

:Water cycle. All terrestrial life crucially depends on the water cycle. All the water cycle’s precipitation components (rain, mist, snow, hail, and sleet) require microscopic seeds (or nuclei) to form. The most important seeds for precipitation are viruses and bacterial fragments resulting from viral attacks.

***

"as Drivers of Biogeochemical Cycles
Another benefit of viruses is the crucial role they play in Earth’s deep carbon, oxygen, and water cycles. As I have explained in my new book, Designed to the Core, each of these three cycles must be amazingly fine-tuned for global human civilization to be possible.1 Viruses play a major role in this fine-tuning.

"Viruses and the bacterial fragments they create are carbonaceous substances. Through their role in precipitation, they form vast carbonaceous sheets on ocean surfaces. These carbonaceous sheets sink slowly and eventually land on the ocean floors. As they sink, they provide important nutrients for deep-sea and benthic (bottom-dwelling) life. Plate tectonics drives much of the viral and bacterial fragments into Earth’s crust and mantle where some of that carbonaceous material is returned to the atmosphere through volcanic eruptions.

"Viruses ensure that carbon, oxygen, and water are cycled from the atmosphere and oceans into Earth’s crust and mantle with just-right amounts returned to Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. Previous studies revealed that the population level of DNA viruses in the world’s oceans is far greater than the populations of all species of marine life combined.2 There are an estimated 1030 DNA viruses in the oceans. If stretched end to end these viruses would extend all the way to the supergiant galaxy NGC 5128, 10 million light-years away. Every second, about a hundred billion trillion DNA viral infections occur in the oceans, killing about 20% of marine microbes daily.

"Thanks to the Tara Oceans Expeditions (TOEs), ecologists are now gaining an accurate picture of the population, diversity, and ecological and geochemical roles of marine RNA viruses. The TOEs doubled the number of known viral phyla from 5 to 10.3 They identified 44,779 different RNA virus contigs (distinct sequences of DNA or RNA fragments).

"A recently published analysis of the TOEs data established the following:4
1) The abundance and diversity of RNA viruses are comparable to that of DNA viruses.
2) DNA and RNA viruses infect different hosts.
3) DNA viruses predominantly infect prokaryote microbes while RNA viruses predominantly infect eukaryote microbes.
4) RNA viruses have shorter and faster-evolving genomes than do DNA viruses.

"Optimal Fine-Tuning Shows Design
The team that performed the analysis of the TOEs data concluded that the abundance and diversity levels of both DNA and RNA viruses must be fine-tuned in all six marine ecological zones (Arctic, Antarctic, Temperate Epipelagic, Tropical Epipelagic, Temperate Mesopelagic, and Tropical Mesopelagic) to maintain optimal marine ecosystems. Similarly, the abundances and diversities of both DNA and RNA viruses must be fine-tuned to maintain the deep carbon, oxygen, and water cycles at levels optimal for advanced life."

Comment: Al Hugh Ross is doing is demonstrating the huge ecosystem to which viruses contribute. He is showing viruses that try to attack us are a tiny portion of the very necessary viral population.

https://supportagresearch.org/story-bank/banishing-bad-bacteria-controlling-e-coli-to-p...

"Dr. Mellata and her team’s project focuses on improving food safety by reducing harmful bacteria in poultry products. Its major goals are: 1) advance our understanding of the zoonotic risk of ExPEC (extraintestinal pathogenic E. coli) infections from chickens; and 2) develop and evaluate a vaccine for chickens to protect them and humans against ExPEC and Salmonella infections.

"ExPEC is the leading cause of blood poisoning (sepsis) in humans. It can also cause diseases such as urinary tract infections and neonatal meningitis, which occurs when a mother passes an E. coli infection to her baby during birth.

"The team’s research revealed that when ExPEC are transferred from a chicken to a mouse, the mouse develops the same diseases that the bacteria cause in humans. This indicates that some ExPEC found in humans may be derived from uncooked, undercooked, or cross-contaminated chicken-food products.

"The project also developed and evaluated vaccines that would eliminate the presence of diverse strains of Salmonella and ExPEC in chickens, and prevent diseases caused by E. coli strains in chickens and humans. While helping poultry farmers preserve their flocks, these vaccines would also protect people from zoonotic disease, and save billions of dollars in human health care costs."

Comment: humans can solve the bad bacteria problems that challenge human food supplies. Most E. coli are 'good' in human gut biomes, but as with the human population, 'bad' ones also exist.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6555/623

"Over the past several years, advances in RNA sequencing have led to an increased appreciation of the prevalence and function of noncoding RNAs, including long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs). These are typically expressed in a tissue-specific manner in healthy tissues and are often dysregulated in disease, making them potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets. On page 662 of this issue, Li et al. reveal the biological importance of a lncRNA in an inherited metabolic disorder called phenylketonuria (PKU) and demonstrate in mice that a molecule that mimics the functional region of this lncRNA is a promising therapeutic. This discovery suggests that short lncRNA fragments could overcome some of the challenges faced by other RNA therapeutic modalities.

"RNA-based and RNA-targeting therapeutics have many advantages: They are cost-effective, are relatively simple to manufacture, can target otherwise undruggable pathways, and have demonstrated success in the treatment of several diseases. Although RNA therapeutics have a long and bumpy history, advances in the generation, purification, and cellular delivery of short oligonucleotides and long RNAs have led to regulatory approval of several RNA-focused therapies, including the much-celebrated messenger RNA (mRNA)–based COVID-19 vaccines.

"The human genome encodes a large number of RNA molecules that do not encode functional proteins, including tens of thousands that are classified as lncRNAs. lncRNAs and mRNAs are virtually identical at the molecular level, although lncRNA production is typically much more tissue specific. Also, lncRNA genes evolve much faster than protein-coding ones. lncRNAs have diverse roles, including in gene regulation and as scaffolds for macromolecular assemblies. Some lncRNAs function in cis—that is, in the vicinity of their site of transcription—whereas others are trans-acting, and their function is not affected by their production site within the genome. Because lncRNAs are expressed in a cell-, tissue-, developmental stage–, or disease-specific manner, their modulation could have substantial, but focal, consequences, which are expected to be well tolerated. However, the progress in elucidating their functions and causally linking genetic changes in lncRNA loci to disease has been slow.

"Antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) are currently the most common approach for therapeutic targeting of RNAs. These are single-stranded oligonucleotides that base pair with a target RNA and can either lead to target degradation or alter target RNA structure and/or its ability to interact with other factors. Chemical modifications of ASOs make them highly stable and able to permeate cells, and considerable progress has been made in the improvement of their pharmacological properties, allowing development of effective therapeutics such as nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy

***

"Several hurdles still need to be overcome before lncRNAs or fragments thereof realize their full therapeutic potential. Perhaps most important is the need for advances in the methods to deliver RNA molecules to specific tissues and cell types (as nanoparticles or through other vehicles), which will also benefit therapeutic mRNAs and ASOs (6). The repertoire of lncRNAs whose biology is properly understood and linked to specific pathological states also needs to be expanded."

Comment: Humans are slowly learning to edit genome metabolic errors. The complexity of the genome is mind-boggling, showing us a designer is required

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03669-y?WT.ec_id=NATURE-202107&sap-outbo...

Social interactions among animals mediate essential behaviours, including mating, nurturing, and defence1,2. The gut microbiota contribute to social activity in mice3,4, but the gut–brain connections that regulate this complex behaviour and its underlying neural basis are unclear5,6. Here we show that the microbiome modulates neuronal activity in specific brain regions of male mice to regulate canonical stress responses and social behaviours. Social deviation in germ-free and antibiotic-treated mice is associated with elevated levels of the stress hormone corticosterone, which is primarily produced by activation of the hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis. Adrenalectomy, antagonism of glucocorticoid receptors, or pharmacological inhibition of corticosterone synthesis effectively corrects social deficits following microbiome depletion. Genetic ablation of glucocorticoid receptors in specific brain regions or chemogenetic inactivation of neurons in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus that produce corticotrophin-releasing hormone (CRH) reverse social impairments in antibiotic-treated mice. Conversely, specific activation of CRH-expressing neurons in the paraventricular nucleus induces social deficits in mice with a normal microbiome. Via microbiome profiling and in vivo selection, we identify a bacterial species, Enterococcus faecalis, that promotes social activity and reduces corticosterone levels in mice following social stress. These studies suggest that specific gut bacteria can restrain the activation of the HPA axis, and show that the microbiome can affect social behaviours through discrete neuronal circuits that mediate stress responses in the brain.

Comment: We continue to learn that bacteria, the starters of life, are still here to help.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-06-potential-viruses-cancer.html

"Researchers from the Laboratory of Oncolytic-Virus-Immuno-Therapeutics (LOVIT) at the LIH Department of Oncology (DONC) are working on the development of novel anticancer strategies based on oncolytic viruses, 'good' viruses that can specifically infect, replicate in and kill cancer cells. In particular, the LOVIT team elucidated the mechanism through which the H-1PV cancer-destroying virus can attach to and enter cancer cells, thereby causing their lysis and death. At the heart of this process lie laminins, and specifically laminin γ1, a family of proteins on the surface of a cancer cell to which this virus binds, and which therefore act as the 'door' through which the virus enters the cells. The findings, which were published in the prestigious international journal Nature Communications, carry significant implications for the advancement of virus-based anticancer strategies and for the prediction of a patient's response to this innovative therapeutic approach.

"Oncolytic viruses, such as the rat virus H-1PV, have the ability to selectively infect and kill tumor cells, inducing their lysis and stimulating an anticancer immune response, without however harming normal healthy tissues. Despite their notable clinical potential, their use as a standalone treatment does not currently result in complete tumor regression, mainly due to the varying degree of patient sensitivity and responsiveness. It is therefore important to be able to identify patients whose tumors display genetic characteristics that make them vulnerable to the virus and who are thus most likely to benefit from this novel anticancer therapy.

"'In this context, we sought to elucidate the features of host cancer cells that enable oncolytic viruses to effectively infect and destroy them, focusing specifically on the factors required for cell attachment and entry," says Dr. Antonio Marchini, leader of LOVIT and corresponding author of the publication.

"Using a technique known as RNA interference, the research team progressively 'switched off' close to 7,000 genes of cervical carcinoma cells to detect those that negatively or positively modulate the infectious capacity of H-1PV. They thus identified 151 genes and their resulting proteins as activators and 89 as repressors of the ability of H-1PV to infect and destroy cancer cells. The team specifically looked at those genes that coded for proteins localized on the cell surface, in order to characterize their role in determining virus docking and entry. They found that a family of proteins called laminins, and particularly laminin γ1, play a crucial role in mediating cell attachment and penetration. Indeed, deactivating the corresponding LAMC1 gene in glioma, cervical, pancreatic, colorectal and lung carcinoma cells resulted in a significant reduction in virus cell binding and uptake, and in increased cancer cell resistance to virus-induced death. A similar effect was observed when switching off the LAMB1 gene encoding the laminin β1 protein.

***

"'These observations indicate that elevated laminin expression is associated with poor patient prognosis and survival in a variety of tumors, including gliomas and glioblastoma. The encouraging fact, however, is that cancers displaying high laminin levels are more susceptible to being infected and destroyed by the H-1PV virus and that patients with these tumors are therefore more likely to be responsive to this therapy," adds Dr. Marchini.

"These findings could lead to the classification of cancer patients according to their individual laminin expression levels, thereby acting as a biomarker that predicts their sensitivity and responsiveness to H-1PV-based anticancer therapies. This will in turn allow the design of more efficient clinical trials with reduced costs and approval times and, ultimately, the development of enhanced combinatorial treatments to tangibly improve patient outcomes."

Comment: It must be remembered, in God's creation there are both good and bad viruses, and we have God-given brains to learn how to use them. And think of bacteriophages, viruses that kill bacteria.

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/verdicts-of-poor-design-in-biology-dont-have-a-good-t...

"The Vertebrate Eye Wired Backwards
"For years people cited the wiring of the vertebrate eye as evidence of “poor design” in biology. But starting in 2010 (Labin and Ribak) and continuing through 2014 researchers solved the mystery of the backwards wiring. “For the first time, we’ve explained why the retina is built backwards, with the neurons in front of the photoreceptors, rather than behind them. The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today,” said Erez Ribak, a professor at the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology). “Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes.” It turns out that the backwards wiring enables improvements in daytime vision without affecting night vision:

"The findings presented here indicate that the spectral separation of light by Müller cells provides a mechanism to improve cone-mediated day vision, with minimal interference with rod-mediated night vision. This is achieved by wavelength sorting of incident light by the Müller cells.

"The Appendix Labeled as a Vestigial Organ
"The misunderstood appendix, often vexed by the modern diet, has been labeled for many years by scientists and medical practitioners alike as an “evolutionary leftover.” Today, with an improved understanding of the microbiome and immune system, scientists now realize that the appendix is actually a safe house for normal gut bacteria. It reseeds the colon with normal gut bacteria following diarrheal washout and facilitates the development of the intestinal immune system. There you have it. Another example of the “poor design” label being incorrectly applied to an area of human physiology that was poorly understood.

"The GTP Proofreading Step as a Wasteful Side Reaction
"The misguided verdict of “poor design” has extended even to core molecular machinery. Cells rely on extremely accurate protein translation to ensure the correct folding and function of proteins. The accuracy of protein translation depends upon a GTP hydrolysis mediated proofreading step that was once considered a “wasteful side reaction.” Uri Alon in his book An Introduction to Systems Biology explores how this reaction allows for a second discrimination step that results in multiplicative lowering of the error rate.

"The fact that the modified tRNA can fall off seems wasteful because the correct tRNA can be lost. Moreover, to make c* costs energy: each amino acid incorporated into a protein requires hydrolysis of GTP which is about one ATP’s worth of energy. This cost adds up to a large part of the cell’s energy balance. However, it is precisely this design that generates high fidelity. The secret is that c* offers a second discrimination step: the wrong tRNA, once modified, can fall off the codon, but it cannot mount back on.

"Assuming the GTP driven proofreading step was a wasteful side reaction is logical only if you think biology is the cobbled-together product of random Darwinian processes. In order to make better predictions, we must start with better assumptions.

"In my last post, I explained why there is not sufficient knowledge of overlapping reading frames or adequate consideration of constraints to confidently state that INK4a and ARF are evidence of poor design. Historical examples also caution against prematurely labeling not-well-understood biological phenomena. "

Comment: Human judgements about God's 'bad 'designs are bad judgements. Please wait until the research is done to explain what seems bad. Human judgement is not at God's level.

dhw: You have agreed that you cannot explain why your God would have “evolved” [= designed] us and our food supply by “evolving” [= designing] all those other unconnected life forms and food supplies if we were his only “goal”. But that is your belief. I must accept that you will not budge. I have presented my theistic alternatives which you have rejected. The discussion is over. So let’s leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine.

dhw: I’m going to ignore your earlier comments in this post, as what you have agreed to actually fills in the gaps created by those comments. Pax!

We agree to disagree.

DAVID: Fine.

I’m going to ignore your earlier comments in this post, as what you have agreed to actually fills in the gaps created by those comments. Pax!

d hw: That does not make your theory of evolution (bolded above) logical.

DAVID: My beliefs are based on a history we both know.

dhw: The history is the bush of life itself. Your belief that your God designed every life form etc., and they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus our food supply is not history, and since 99% of them had no connection with humans, even you cannot find a logical reason why your God would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal.

The bold is your usual distortion. I simply accept that God chose to evolve us, since I believe He is the creator. I can not know His reasons. Simple acceptance is logical.

dhw: The issue between us is not the existence of God, but your theory of evolution (bolded above).

I recognize our views on evolution differ. I simply state God originated life and evolved us.

DAVID: About 150+ estimate of books starting in the 1980's. In contrast to you I ended up with a firm belief in God.

dhw: Not the issue. My question concerning the experts was quite explicitly whether they agreed with your theory (bolded above) that “your God’s method of designing the one and only life form he wanted to design (humans plus food supply) was to design millions of life forms plus food supplies that had no connection with humans.”

ID and I state God designed life forms.

And under “Gamma rays”:
DAVID: God is obviously in the role of creator. We are here. Therefore God created us. We evolved, so that was the method He used. Your approach is why any God at all? You question, I've stopped. We even interpret the process of evolution very differently.

dhw: My approach is not “Why any God at all?” It is your interpretation of evolution (bolded above) that I have challenged here. The other issue is theodicy, which is based entirely on the premise that your God exists. There is simply no need for any of these digressions or misrepresentations of what is at issue. You have agreed that you cannot explain why your God would have “evolved” [= designed] us and our food supply by “evolving” [= designing] all those other unconnected life forms and food supplies if we were his only “goal”. But that is your belief. I must accept that you will not budge. I have presented my theistic alternatives which you have rejected. The discussion is over. So let’s leave it at that.

Fine

DAVID: My theory is based on belief in God creating our reality.

dhw: It is based on your belief in your interpretation of your God’s one and only purpose – to design humans – and your interpretation of his method of achieving that purpose, which entailed designing thousands of species “de novo” plus all their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans.

I am now going to quote your replies to the rest of my post, all of which represent the same dodge that you have used over and over again. Our disagreement has nothing whatsoever to do with your belief in God's existence. It is your illogical theory of evolution, as summarized above, that is the issue.

DAVID: That is your strange distorted version of what I think. I believe in God as the force that is first cause. His final creation was humans. He may have done this and over in His past.

That does not make your theory of evolution (bolded above) logical.

DAVID: My beliefs are based on a history we both know.

The history is the bush of life itself. Your belief that your God designed every life form etc., and they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans” plus our food supply is not history, and since 99% of them had no connection with humans, even you cannot find a logical reason why your God would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal.

DAVID: To a person like me, your attempts at theism give an obvious impression of humanizing God. I might ask you to stop dodging, but your rigid thought pattern cannot change. You simply do not understand the view of theism, God, I have.

It is your theory of evolution (bolded above) that I am challenging, and you yourself admit that you cannot explain it. I do not ask you to believe any of my alternative theistic theories, and none of them represent a "rigid thought pattern", but you agree that they are all logical.

DAVID: How do you dare to tell me I was so tunnel-visioned I only considered one alternative when I was first studying the issue of God? I have reached my conclusions that God exists and creates, based on a mass of reading.

The issue between us is not the existence of God, but your theory of evolution (bolded above).

DAVID: About 150+ estimate of books starting in the 1980's. In contrast to you I ended up with a firm belief in God.

Not the issue. My question concerning the experts was quite explicitly whether they agreed with your theory (bolded above) that “your God’s method of designing the one and only life form he wanted to design (humans plus food supply) was to design millions of life forms plus food supplies that had no connection with humans.”

And under “Gamma rays”:
DAVID: God is obviously in the role of creator. We are here. Therefore God created us. We evolved, so that was the method He used. Your approach is why any God at all? You question, I've stopped. We even interpret the process of evolution very differently.

My approach is not “Why any God at all?” It is your interpretation of evolution (bolded above) that I have challenged here. The other issue is theodicy, which is based entirely on the premise that your God exists. There is simply no need for any of these digressions or misrepresentations of what is at issue. You have agreed that you cannot explain why your God would have “evolved” [= designed] us and our food supply by “evolving” [= designing] all those other unconnected life forms and food supplies if we were his only “goal”. But that is your belief. I must accept that you will not budge. I have presented my theistic alternatives which you have rejected. The discussion is over. So let’s leave it at that.

dhw: First dodge: Your theory is not “history”, so please stop pretending that it is.

DAVID: My theory is based on belief in God creating our reality.

dhw: It is based on your belief in your interpretation of your God’s one and only purpose – to design humans – and your interpretation of his method of achieving that purpose, which entailed designing thousands of species “de novo” plus all their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans.

That is your strange distorted version of what I think. I believe in God as the force that is first cause. His final creation was humans. He may have done this and over in His past.

dhw: This is not “history”, and it is illogical.

My beliefs are based on a history we both know.

dhw: Every alternative theory I have offered you allows for belief in your God “creating our reality”. and you have accepted that they are all logical. That doesn’t mean either of us has to believe any of them – they are only theories – but at least you agree that unlike your own, they provide logical theistic explanations of the history we know.

To a person like me, your attempts at theism give an obvious impression of humanizing God. I might ask you to stop dodging, but your rigid thought pattern cannot change. You simply do not understand the view of theism, God, I have

dhw: This is irrelevant to the question of why your God would have specially designed every species that has ever existed in order to specially design humans and our food supply. You don’t know why he would have chosen this method of designing humans, but you have a fixed belief that this is what he wanted and did. Why do you continue to pretend it is logical while at the same time admitting that you can’t explain it logically? I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Stop distorting my position as stated in the bold. I simply accept God's choice of method in creating us and admit I cannot know why God chose the method.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, none of us know anything beyond the fact that there have been countless life forms and their food supplies, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. ... It is your interpretation of his choice both of goal (us) and method, and the fact that you cannot find a logical reason why he would have made such a choice suggests that your interpretation could be wrong. And so instead of saying you accept his choice, why not just say that your illogical interpretation of his choice is fixed and you do not intend to consider any alternatives, even if you agree that they are logical.

How do you dare to tell me I was so tunnel-visioned I only considered one alternative when I was first studying the issue of God? I have reached my conclusions that God exists and creates, based on a mass of reading.

Under: “Introducing the brain”
DAVID: My declaration as to what I believe is arrived upon by my logic and reading expert thought as a basis.

dhw: So your logic tells you that your God designed every life form “de novo”, 99% of them had no connection with humans, but humans were his only goal and this was his way of designing them. I wonder how many “experts” agree with you.

DAVID: Are you telling me you don't accept anything unless nameless experts agree with you? Sad.

dhw: You wrote that your belief in your theory of evolution is based on your logic (but you can’t find any logical reason for it) and on “reading expert thought”. That is why I wondered if any experts agreed with you that your God’s method of designing the one and only life form he wanted to design (humans plus food supply) was to design million of life forms plus food supplies that had no connection with humans. Or did you mean that you had read the work of lots of experts and your belief is based on the fact that you don’t believe any of them?

About 150+ estimate of books starting in the 1980's. In contrast to you I ended up with a firm belief in God.

DAVID: My theory is based on belief in God creating our reality.

It is based on your belief in your interpretation of your God’s one and only purpose – to design humans – and your interpretation of his method of achieving that purpose, which entailed designing thousands of species “de novo” plus all their food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans. This is not “history”, and it is illogical. Every alternative theory I have offered you allows for belief in your God “creating our reality”. and you have accepted that they are all logical. That doesn’t mean either of us has to believe any of them – they are only theories – but at least you agree that unlike your own, they provide logical theistic explanations of the history we know. Please stop dodging.

dhw: Second dodge: […] I keep repeating that evolution is a continuum from the first cells, but the bush of life has diversified into thousands and thousands of different branches or lines, only one of which has led to humans. You agree: “Of course one line becomes humans”.

DAVID: You keep ignoring the necessary provision for a giant food supply for a giant human population, until I remind you.

I keep reminding you that the giant food supply for a giant human population has no connection with the food supplies for the life forms you think your God designed before humans arrived on the scene, 99% of which had no connection with humans and their food supply: “The current bush is for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And: “Extinct life has no role in current time.” Please stop dodging.

dhw: This is irrelevant to the question of why your God would have specially designed every species that has ever existed in order to specially design humans and our food supply. You don’t know why he would have chosen this method of designing humans, but you have a fixed belief that this is what he wanted and did. Why do you continue to pretend it is logical while at the same time admitting that you can’t explain it logically? I suggest we leave it at that.

DAVID: Stop distorting my position as stated in the bold. I simply accept God's choice of method in creating us and admit I cannot know why God chose the method.

For the umpteenth time, none of us know anything beyond the fact that there have been countless life forms and their food supplies, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. in the course of life’s history prior to ourselves. According to you, your God’s “method of creating” ALL of these, including ourselves, was to design them individually. As above, you cannot say this was his choice. It is your interpretation of his choice both of goal (us) and method, and the fact that you cannot find a logical reason why he would have made such a choice suggests that your interpretation could be wrong. And so instead of saying you accept his choice, why not just say that your illogical interpretation of his choice is fixed and you do not intend to consider any alternatives, even if you agree that they are logical.

Under: “Introducing the brain”
DAVID: My declaration as to what I believe is arrived upon by my logic and reading expert thought as a basis.

dhw: So your logic tells you that your God designed every life form “de novo”, 99% of them had no connection with humans, but humans were his only goal and this was his way of designing them. I wonder how many “experts” agree with you.

DAVID: Are you telling me you don't accept anything unless nameless experts agree with you? Sad.

You wrote that your belief in your theory of evolution is based on your logic (but you can’t find any logical reason for it) and on “reading expert thought”. That is why I wondered if any experts agreed with you that your God’s method of designing the one and only life form he wanted to design (humans plus food supply) was to design million of life forms plus food supplies that had no connection with humans. Or did you mean that you had read the work of lots of experts and your belief is based on the fact that you don’t believe any of them?

dhw: You admit that you can find no logical reason for your God evolving us in the way YOU choose. You do not accept that he did, you accept your own theory that that is what he did. We both regard it as history that humans evolved. But even if we accept the theory that God exists, it is NOT history that he designed every life form etc. “de novo”, and it is NOT history that every life form etc. that he specially designed was bb“part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.” You have agreed that the current bush of life has nothing to do with the past bushes of life, which again your God specially designed. Thank you for admitting that you can find no reasons why your God would have fulfilled his one and only purpose the way you think he did. Why won’t you leave it at that?

DAVID: The bold is one of the distortions you use to continue the discussion. The current bush is in a different time period, so the only lack of relationship is the time periods. You constantly slice and dice evolution into separate segments.

dhw: First dodge: Your theory is not “history”, so please stop pretending that it is.

My theory is based on belief in God creating our reality

dhw: Second dodge: how can every life form have been part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing”] humans if 99% of life forms had no connection with humans? As for segments etc., I keep repeating that evolution is a continuum from the first cells, but the bush of life has diversified into thousands and thousands of different branches or lines, only one of which has led to humans. You agree: “Of course one line becomes humans”.

You keep ignoring the necessary provision for a giant food supply for a giant human population, until I remind you.

dhw: The other 99% of lines had no connection with humans, and their food supplies had no connection with human food supplies. Time is also a continuum, but humans have divided it into “periods” for convenience in order to write history. This is irrelevant to the question of why your God would have specially designed every species that has ever existed in order to specially design humans and our food supply. You don’t know why he would have chosen this method of designing humans, but you have a fixed belief that this is what he wanted and did. Why do you continue to pretend it is logical while at the same time admitting that you can’t explain it logically? I suggest we leave it at that.

Stop distorting my position as stated in the bold. I simply accept God's choice of method in creating us and admit I cannot know why God chose the method. What logical concepts are you looking for? You can't explain God's reasons either. Based on the Darwin theory that survival drives all of the advanced complexity in each new stage of evolution, our human attributes are well beyond survival needs, therefore the Adler conjecture which I accept.

Under: “Introducing the brain”
DAVID: Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?

dhw: I have taken this remark out of its limited context because it is so appropriate to this discussion. We do not have the “full story”, and so we theorize. And then we test the logic of the theories we have proposed. Why do we do it? Because we long to know the truth. And so you offer us your guess, but you “accept” (which should be "believe" - see above) that your guess is the truth, even though you have “no idea” why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him in order to achieve the purpose you attribute to him.

DAVID: My declaration as to what I believe is arrived upon by my logic and reading expert thought as a basis.

dhw: So your logic tells you that your God designed every life form “de novo”, 99% of them had no connection with humans, but humans were his only goal and this was his way of designing them. I wonder how many “experts” agree with you.

Are you telling me you don't accept anything unless nameless experts agree with you? Sad.

DAVID: I don't know God's reasons for evolving us in the way He chose. But I accept that He did and the current bush of life can be explained logically. Just study history as God's works.

dhw: You admit that you can find no logical reason for your God evolving us in the way YOU choose. You do not accept that he did, you accept your own theory that that is what he did. We both regard it as history that humans evolved. But even if we accept the theory that God exists, it is NOT history that he designed every life form etc. “de novo”, and it is NOT history that every life form etc. that he specially designed was bb“part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.” You have agreed that the current bush of life has nothing to do with the past bushes of life, which again your God specially designed. Thank you for admitting that you can find no reasons why your God would have fulfilled his one and only purpose the way you think he did. Why won’t you leave it at that?

DAVID: The bold is one of the distortions you use to continue the discussion. The current bush is in a different time period, so the only lack of relationship is the time periods. You constantly slice and dice evolution into separate segments.

First dodge: Your theory is not “history”, so please stop pretending that it is. Second dodge: how can every life form have been part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing”] humans if 99% of life forms had no connection with humans? As for segments etc., I keep repeating that evolution is a continuum from the first cells, but the bush of life has diversified into thousands and thousands of different branches or lines, only one of which has led to humans. You agree: “Of course one line becomes humans”. The other 99% of lines had no connection with humans, and their food supplies had no connection with human food supplies. Time is also a continuum, but humans have divided it into “periods” for convenience in order to write history. This is irrelevant to the question of why your God would have specially designed every species that has ever existed in order to specially design humans and our food supply. You don’t know why he would have chosen this method of designing humans, but you have a fixed belief that this is what he wanted and did. Why do you continue to pretend it is logical while at the same time admitting that you can’t explain it logically? I suggest we leave it at that.

Under: “Introducing the brain”
DAVID: Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?

dhw: I have taken this remark out of its limited context because it is so appropriate to this discussion. We do not have the “full story”, and so we theorize. And then we test the logic of the theories we have proposed. Why do we do it? Because we long to know the truth. And so you offer us your guess, but you “accept” (which should be "believe" - see above) that your guess is the truth, even though you have “no idea” why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him in order to achieve the purpose you attribute to him.

DAVID: My declaration as to what I believe is arrived upon by my logic and reading expert thought as a basis.

So your logic tells you that your God designed every life form “de novo”, 99% of them had no connection with humans, but humans were his only goal and this was his way of designing them. I wonder how many “experts” agree with you.

d hw: But as usual you have left out the next part of your theory, which is that [Thank you for admitting thb]in order to achieve his goal of creating humans, he first created “de novo” (an additional twist to your tale) millions of life forms, econiches, food supplies, strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans.[/b] Your reply to this is:

DAVID: I don't know God's reasons for evolving us in the way He chose. But I accept that He did and the current bush of life can be explained logically. Just study history as God's works.

dhw: You admit that you can find no logical reason for your God evolving us in the way YOU choose. You do not accept that he did, you accept your own theory that that is what he did. We both regard it as history that humans evolved. But even if we accept the theory that God exists, it is NOT history that he designed every life form etc. “de novo”, and it is NOT history that every life form etc. that he specially designed was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.” You have agreed that the current bush of life has nothing to do with the past bushes of life, which again your God specially designed. Thank you for admitting that you can find no reasons why your God would have fulfilled his one and only purpose the way you think he did. Why won’t you leave it at that?

The bold is one of the distortions you use to continue the discussion. The current bush is in a different time period, so the only lack of relationship is the time periods. You constantly slice and dice evolution into separate segments. The red is another distortion of my statement above. And finally, you constantly drop into other discussion your standard illogical complaint. Why should I stop, if you can't? We both agree that our opposite positions won't change.

Under: “Introducing the brain”

DAVID: Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?

dhw: I have taken this remark out of its limited context because it is so appropriate to this discussion. We do not have the “full story”, and so we theorize. And then we test the logic of the theories we have proposed. Why do we do it? Because we long to know the truth. And so you offer us your guess, but you “accept” (which should be "believe" - see above) that your guess is the truth, even though you have “no idea” why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him in order to achieve the purpose you attribute to him.

My declaration as to what I believe is arrived upon by my logic and reading expert thought as a basis.

dhw: The dodging concerns exactly what you are doing here. Whenever I call attention to the illogicality of your theory (which is what I bolded earlier) that God’s sole purpose was to design humans and food supply, and therefore he designed millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans and our food supply, you switch to another subject – in this case my alternative theories.

DAVID: I don't switch. Your theories are what you use to challenge mine.

No they are not. They are alternatives to yours. I challenge yours because it is illogical.

DAVID: I believe in God and have a specific set of logical attributes I apply to Him. I fully believe humans were His eventual goal in creating the universe, the Milky Way, this Earth which supports life. For me nothing about evolution in that context is illogical.

But as usual you have left out the next part of your theory, which is that in order to achieve his goal of creating humans, he first created “de novo” (an additional twist to your tale) millions of life forms, econiches, food supplies, strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., 99% of which had no connection with humans. Your reply to this is:

DAVID: I don't know God's reasons for evolving us in the way He chose. But I accept that He did and the current bush of life can be explained logically. Just study history as God's works.

You admit that you can find no logical reason for your God evolving us in the way YOU choose. You do not accept that he did, you accept your own theory that that is what he did. We both regard it as history that humans evolved. But even if we accept the theory that God exists, it is NOT history that he designed every life form etc. “de novo”, and it is NOT history that every life form etc. that he specially designed was “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.” You have agreed that the current bush of life has nothing to do with the past bushes of life, which again your God specially designed. Thank you for admitting that you can find no reasons why your God would have fulfilled his one and only purpose the way you think he did. Why won’t you leave it at that?

Under “bird brains”:
dhw: I keep agreeing that evolution is a continuum, but the continuum is the branching out from the roots of the bush to countless branches of life forms, only one of which presents a single line from bacteria to humans. The increasing complexity is not confined to that one line. Please stop leaving out those parts of your theory that make it illogical.

DAVID: Of course one line becomes humans. The bush supplies our huge population the required food we need, all logically presented before.

And yet again you leave out all the other lines and food bushes which, according to you, your God specially designed “de novo”, although they had no connection with humans or their food supply. This constant “editing” is how you repeatedly prolong the debate unnecessarily. As above, you’ve admitted you can’t find any logic to bind your different beliefs together, so please leave it at that.

Under: “Introducing the brain”

DAVID: Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?

I have taken this remark out of its limited context because it is so appropriate to this discussion. We do not have the “full story”, and so we theorize. And then we test the logic of the theories we have proposed. Why do we do it? Because we long to know the truth. And so you offer us your guess, but you “accept” (which should be "believe" - see above) that your guess is the truth, even though you have “no idea” why your God would have chosen the method you attribute to him in order to achieve the purpose you attribute to him.

DAVID: We disagree on how to interpret the process of evolution from the position a belief in God. I have reached a logical conclusion God must exist, you haven't. So we begin our discussion from two different mindsets. Not surprising we will never agree. I have intention to change my viewpoint for yours. Remember, I view your agnosticism as illogical, but I don't ask you to change.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I am NOT disputing your belief in God, but am disputing the above bolded theory. Every alternative theory of evolution that I have offered is theistic. Please stop dodging the issue.

DAVID: I'm allowed to dodge, by honestly disagreeing with your interpretations. Your theistic approaches all fit a God personality I don't believe in. I call Him humanized. You don't like it but that is my view of your God. I try to interpret His underlying motives.

dhw: The dodging concerns exactly what you are doing here. Whenever I call attention to the illogicality of your theory (which is what I bolded earlier) that God’s sole purpose was to design humans and food supply, and therefore he designed millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans and our food supply, you switch to another subject – in this case my alternative theories.

I don't switch. Your theories are what you use to challenge mine. I believe in God and have a specific set of logical attributes I apply to Him. I fully believe humans were His eventual goal in creating the universe, the Milky Way, this Earth which supports life. For me nothing about evolution in that context is illogical. Your interpretation of the history of evolution in the context of a belief in God is not my interpretation.

dhw: […] you were pretending that we were discussing the existence of God, as if my alternative theories did not allow for his existence. I understand your Creationism. What I do not understand is why you believe that your God designed every life form on every branch of the bush of life as part of his one and only goal of designing humans, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a purpose, but you will stick to your illogical interpretation of his purpose and method and you reject any logical alternatives. We should leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine. My opinion all goes back to the very reasonable views expressed in Adler's book.

dhw: You have told us that Adler does not cover your theory of evolution as bolded above, but only uses man’s exceptional gifts as evidence for God’s existence. In any case, I don't know why mention of the name Adler is supposed to explain a theory which you yourself can't explain!

My thinking starts with Adler's contention that humans are God's goal and prove God exists. Adler doesn't need to depict a reason for the way evolution evolved us. And again your distortion about explanations. I don't know God's reasons for evolving us in the way He chose. But I accept that He did and the current bush of life can be explained logically. Just study history as God's works.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I am NOT disputing your belief in God, but am disputing the above bolded theory. Every alternative theory of evolution that I have offered is theistic. Please stop dodging the issue.

DAVID: I'm allowed to dodge, by honestly disagreeing with your interpretations. Your theistic approaches all fit a God personality I don't believe in. I call Him humanized. You don't like it but that is my view of your God. I try to interpret His underlying motives.

The dodging concerns exactly what you are doing here. Whenever I call attention to the illogicality of your theory (which is what I bolded earlier) that God’s sole purpose was to design humans and food supply, and therefore he designed millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans and our food supply, you switch to another subject – in this case my alternative theories.

dhw: […] you were pretending that we were discussing the existence of God, as if my alternative theories did not allow for his existence. I understand your Creationism. What I do not understand is why you believe that your God designed every life form on every branch of the bush of life as part of his one and only goal of designing humans, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a purpose, but you will stick to your illogical interpretation of his purpose and method and you reject any logical alternatives. We should leave it at that.

DAVID: Fine. My opinion all goes back to the very reasonable views expressed in Adler's book.

You have told us that Adler does not cover your theory of evolution as bolded above, but only uses man’s exceptional gifts as evidence for God’s existence. In any case, I don't know why mention of the name Adler is supposed to explain a theory which you yourself can't explain!

DAVID: We disagree on how to interpret the process of evolution from the position a belief in God. I have reached a logical conclusion God must exist, you haven't. So we begin our discussion from two different mindsets. Not surprising we will never agree. I have intention to change my viewpoint for yours. Remember, I view your agnosticism as illogical, but I don't ask you to change.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I am NOT disputing your belief in God, but am disputing the above bolded theory. Every alternative theory of evolution that I have offered is theistic. Please stop dodging the issue.

I'm allowed to dodge, by honestly disagreeing with your interpretations. Your theistic approaches all fit a God personality I don't believe in. I call Him humanized. You don't like it but that is my view of your God. I try to interpret His underlying motives.

DAVID: Same answer as above. We do not interpret the process of evolution in similar ways. My view of God is hands on and designing each step.

dhw: This is not the same answer as above, because above you were pretending that we were discussing the existence of God, as if my alternative theories did not allow for his existence. I understand your Creationism. What I do not understand is why you believe that your God designed every life form on every branch of the bush of life as part of his one and only goal of designing humans, although 99% of them had no connection with humans. You have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a purpose, but you will stick to your illogical interpretation of his purpose and method and you reject any logical alternatives. We should leave it at that.

Fine. My opinion all goes back to the very reasonable views expressed in Adler's book.