dhw: If he is all-powerful, he didn’t “have to do” anything. He did what he wanted! So he must have wanted the general freedom, which includes what you call the "mistakes" which, despite his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to correct,

DAVID: Again blinkered view. Considering the trillions of required reactions per nanosecond all correct or corrected by God's editing programs, it works extremely well. Obviously errors are additive and terrible for some, but a tiny result of the whole working process of life.

dhw: Yes, the system works extremely well except when it doesn’t work extremely well, and this still doesn’t explain why an all-powerful God was forced against his will to devise a system that contained errors which he was powerless to correct. Why is it “blinkered” to argue that an all-powerful God is more likely to have designed the system he wanted to design?

I think exactly that. God designed the system He wanted as the only one that would work.

Universal consciousness
QUOTES: "However, a number of scientists and philosophers of science have recently argued that this kind of ‘bottom-up’ picture of the Universe is outdated, and that contemporary physics suggests that in fact we live in a ‘top-down’ – or ‘holist’ – Universe"

"Goff argues for cosmopsychism, a form of panpsychism in which “the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself.”

dhw: Nothing new here. Top down = God, bottom up = particles. I don’t know why anyone should think that the opinions of scientists and philosophers of science are any more significant than those of other people, since no one can possibly know the truth, even though some people on either side of the fence think they do!

DAVID: That makes me equal to Adler. Thank you.

dhw: I really don’t know why you are so obsessed with Adler when according to you he doesn’t even mention your illogical theory of evolution, but yes, you are his equal in your belief that God exists, and you are Dawkins’ equal because he believes God doesn’t exist, and we are all equal because in fact none of us know the truth. Hence my point that scientists and philosophers of science are no more qualified than anyone else to make judgements about the top-down v bottom-up origin of consciousness.

You always miss Adler's point that the production of most unusual humans proves God. That fits my view of evolution designed toward a goal of humans, doesn't it?

DAVID: But God didn't and if He is all powerful, as we label him, obviously He had to do it the way it is!!!

dhw: God didn’t what? Didn’t design the system he wanted, which is the system we have? If he is all-powerful, he didn’t “have to do” anything. He did what he wanted! So he must have wanted the general freedom, which includes what you call the "mistakes" which, despite his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to correct,

DAVID: Again blinkered view. Considering the trillions of required reactions per nanosecond all correct or corrected by God's editing programs, it works extremely well. Obviously errors are additive and terrible for some, but a tiny result of the whole working process of life.

Yes, the system works extremely well except when it doesn’t work extremely well, and this still doesn’t explain why an all-powerful God was forced against his will to devise a system that contained errors which he was powerless to correct. Why is it “blinkered” to argue that an all-powerful God is more likely to have designed the system he wanted to design?

Universal consciousness
QUOTES: "However, a number of scientists and philosophers of science have recently argued that this kind of ‘bottom-up’ picture of the Universe is outdated, and that contemporary physics suggests that in fact we live in a ‘top-down’ – or ‘holist’ – Universe"

"Goff argues for cosmopsychism, a form of panpsychism in which “the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself.”

dhw: Nothing new here. Top down = God, bottom up = particles. I don’t know why anyone should think that the opinions of scientists and philosophers of science are any more significant than those of other people, since no one can possibly know the truth, even though some people on either side of the fence think they do!

DAVID: That makes me equal to Adler. Thank you.

I really don’t know why you are so obsessed with Adler when according to you he doesn’t even mention your illogical theory of evolution, but yes, you are his equal in your belief that God exists, and you are Dawkins’ equal because he believes God doesn’t exist, and we are all equal because in fact none of us know the truth. Hence my point that scientists and philosophers of science are no more qualified than anyone else to make judgements about the top-down v bottom-up origin of consciousness.

dhw: I remain baffled by the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who “has to” design a system containing errors which he does not want and which he is incapable of correcting. My idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing God is that he would design precisely the system he WANTS to design. Hence the freedom at all levels from micro to macro for cells and cell communities to change structures.

DAVID: But God didn't and if He is all powerful, as we label him, obviously He had to do it the way it is!!!

dhw: God didn’t what? Didn’t design the system he wanted, which is the system we have? If he is all-powerful, he didn’t “have to do” anything. He did what he wanted! So he must have wanted the general freedom, which includes what you call the "mistakes" which, despite his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to correct,

Again blinkered view. Considering the trillions of required reactions per nanosecond all correct or corrected by God's editing programs, it works extremely well. Obviously errors are additive and terrible for some, but a tiny result of the whole working process of life.

Universal consciousness
QUOTES: "However, a number of scientists and philosophers of science have recently argued that this kind of ‘bottom-up’ picture of the Universe is outdated, and that contemporary physics suggests that in fact we live in a ‘top-down’ – or ‘holist’ – Universe, "Goff argues for cosmopsychism, a form of panpsychism in which “the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself.”

Goff argues for cosmopsychism, a form of panpsychism in which “the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself.

DAVID: I think we live in the mind of God.

dhw: Nothing new here. Top down = God, bottom up = particles. I don’t know why anyone should think that the opinions of scientists and philosophers of science are any more significant than those of other people, since no one can possibly know the truth, even though some people on either side of the fence think they do!

That makes me equal to Adler. Thank you.

DAVID: But God didn't and if He is all powerful, as we label him, obviously He had to do it the way it is!!!

God didn’t what? Didn’t design the system he wanted, which is the system we have? If he is all-powerful, he didn’t “have to do” anything. He did what he wanted! So he must have wanted the general freedom, which includes what you call the "mistakes" which, despite his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to correct,

Importance of pathogens
dhw:. If accidents can cause your God to “change course”, then it is illogical to claim that he had planned everything in advance and was always in total control.

DAVID: I agree, God probably allowed chance events, and used them to continue with His plans.

dhw: Thank you. If Chixculub was an accident that wiped out the dinosaurs, does that mean he didn’t plan to wipe out the dinosaurs, and they would have continued to exist while he got on with his one and only goal of designing humans? I can't help wondering why he designed them in the first place, if all he wanted was us and our food! Or maybe the accident forced him to change our menu! I must say, though, I do like the idea of your God allowing for accidents, as it takes us right back to the enjoyable “unpredictability” of the free-for-all which would account for all the comings and goings of life forms with no connection to humans, which you yourself cannot explain.

DAVID: but I have explained it to my satisfaction. God evolves what He wants to create. You cannot deny it. He takes His sweet time, as time is of no consequence to Him.

If God exists, then of course this is true. Time is irrelevant, and you have left out the only thing you believe he wanted to create (us and our food). Your usual dodge. What he has created is the long history of life forms etc. that came and went, most of which had no connection with humans, and maybe there were even lots of chance events to add to the surprising unpredictability you agreed to a week or two ago.

DAVID: I don't try to explain His choice of method, which so worries you. All connections have been given and are unacceptable to you in the tortured way you view evolution step by step. All unconnected to you.

You don’t (or can’t) try to explain how all the other step-by-step life forms and foods are connected to step-by-step humans and their food, though you think the latter were his one and only purpose, but you have given all the connections! All which connections? Please stop dodging!

Universal consciousness
QUOTES: "However, a number of scientists and philosophers of science have recently argued that this kind of ‘bottom-up’ picture of the Universe is outdated, and that contemporary physics suggests that in fact we live in a ‘top-down’ – or ‘holist’ – Universe, "Goff argues for cosmopsychism, a form of panpsychism in which “the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself.”

Goff argues for cosmopsychism, a form of panpsychism in which “the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself.

DAVID: I think we live in the mind of God.

Nothing new here. Top down = God, bottom up = particles. I don’t know why anyone should think that the opinions of scientists and philosophers of science are any more significant than those of other people, since no one can possibly know the truth, even though some people on either side of the fence think they do!

DAVID: I'm referring to metabolic errors that can kill, while you remain off that point. God edited to prevent them.

dhw: And in some cases – despite being all-powerful – he failed to do so. The “metabolic errors” were included under “deviant cells”, and I am suggesting that the diseases that kill, like everything else that kills, are the result of the freedom of choice you have acknowledged as being part of your God’s system.

DAVID: Not freedom of choice, but molecules are free to make mistakes in folding, etc., since they are not tightly controlled in reactions by physical and electrical forces influencing them.

dhw: Call it whatever kind of freedom you like, I remain baffled by the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who “has to” design a system containing errors which he does not want and which he is incapable of correcting. My idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing God is that he would design precisely the system he WANTS to design. Hence the freedom at all levels from micro to macro for cells and cell communities to change structures.

But God didn't and if He is all powerful, as we label him, obviously He had to do it the way it is!!!

Importance of pathogens
dhw:. If accidents can cause your God to “change course”, then it is illogical to claim that he had planned everything in advance and was always in total control.

DAVID: He obviously planned for the great oxygenation event. But some events certainly seem at random like the course of each asteroid now flying around the solar system.

dhw: You can pick and choose as much as you like, but you cannot dispute the logic of my statement.

DAVID: I agree, God probably allowed chance events, and used them to continue with His plans.

dhw: Thank you. If Chixculub was an accident that wiped out the dinosaurs, does that mean he didn’t plan to wipe out the dinosaurs, and they would have continued to exist while he got on with his one and only goal of designing humans? I can't help wondering why he designed them in the first place, if all he wanted was us and our food! Or maybe the accident forced him to change our menu! I must say, though, I do like the idea of your God allowing for accidents, as it takes us right back to the enjoyable “unpredictability” of the free-for-all which would account for all the comings and goings of life forms with no connection to humans, which you yourself cannot explain.

but I have explained it to my satisfaction. God evolves what He wants to create. You cannot deny it. He takes His sweet time, as time is of no consequence to Him. I don't try to explain His choice of method, which so worries you. All connections have been given and are unacceptable to you in the tortured way you view evolution step by step. All unconnected to you.

DAVID: I'm referring to metabolic errors that can kill, while you remain off that point. God edited to prevent them.

dhw: And in some cases – despite being all-powerful – he failed to do so. The “metabolic errors” were included under “deviant cells”, and I am suggesting that the diseases that kill, like everything else that kills, are the result of the freedom of choice you have acknowledged as being part of your God’s system.

DAVID: Not freedom of choice, but molecules are free to make mistakes in folding, etc., since they are not tightly controlled in reactions by physical and electrical forces influencing them.

Call it whatever kind of freedom you like, I remain baffled by the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who “has to” design a system containing errors which he does not want and which he is incapable of correcting. My idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing God is that he would design precisely the system he WANTS to design. Hence the freedom at all levels from micro to macro for cells and cell communities to change structures.

Importance of pathogens
dhw:. If accidents can cause your God to “change course”, then it is illogical to claim that he had planned everything in advance and was always in total control.

DAVID: He obviously planned for the great oxygenation event. But some events certainly seem at random like the course of each asteroid now flying around the solar system.

dhw: You can pick and choose as much as you like, but you cannot dispute the logic of my statement.

DAVID: I agree, God probably allowed chance events, and used them to continue with His plans.

Thank you. If Chixculub was an accident that wiped out the dinosaurs, does that mean he didn’t plan to wipe out the dinosaurs, and they would have continued to exist while he got on with his one and only goal of designing humans? I can't help wondering why he designed them in the first place, if all he wanted was us and our food! Or maybe the accident forced him to change our menu! I must say, though, I do like the idea of your God allowing for accidents, as it takes us right back to the enjoyable “unpredictability” of the free-for-all which would account for all the comings and goings of life forms with no connection to humans, which you yourself cannot explain.

dhw: I have said they are not “mistakes” but are merely examples of free organisms designing their own way of surviving. Bacteria or deviant cells that kill us by feeding on us are no different from all the other life forms that survive by killing. Do you see all carnivores as “mistakes” your all-powerful God didn’t want but couldn’t correct?

DAVID: I'm referring to metabolic errors that can kill, while you remain off that point. God edited to prevent them.

dhw: And in some cases – despite being all-powerful – he failed to do so. The “metabolic errors” were included under “deviant cells”, and I am suggesting that the diseases that kill, like everything else that kills, are the result of the freedom of choice you have acknowledged as being part of your God’s system.

Not freedom of choice, but molecules are free to make mistakes in folding, etc., since they are not tightly controlled in reactions by physical and electrical forces influencing them.

Importance of pathogens
dhw:. If accidents can cause your God to “change course”, then it is illogical to claim that he had planned everything in advance and was always in total control.

DAVID: He obviously planned for the great oxygenation event. But some events certainly seem at random like the course of each asteroid now flying around the solar system.

dhw: You can pick and choose as much as you like, but you cannot dispute the logic of my statement.

I agree, God probably allowed chance events, and used them to continue with His plans.

dhw: You seem to have forgotten that you were telling me we can only define your God’s PERSONALITY by his actions. Of course you can extrapolate purpose from his actions. In that case, his actions of producing the unexpected brontosaurus and every other unexpected extinct life form that had no connection with humans and their foods show his purpose. So do tell us what that purpose was. (Adler apparently doesn’t cover that.)

DAVID: Amnesia! Adler uses God's purposeful production of highly unusual humans as a result of evoution to prove God.

It is you who are suffering from amnesia. Our disagreement is not over Adler’s “proof” that God exists, but over your interpretation of God’s purpose! Please reread the above exchange and tell us your God’s purpose for producing past “unexpected” life forms that had no connection with humans and their foods, if his purpose was only to produce humans and their foods. On second thoughts, don’t bother. It’s covered on the other thread: His reasons are “unknown to us”.

dhw: […] you cannot possibly know that your all-powerful God was unable to design a system without errors, and I suggest that your all-powerful God designed the system that he WANTED – and what you call errors were not errors but were/are life forms using their freedom to find their own ways of survival.

DAVID: So you ignore mistakes that kill?

dhw: I have said they are not “mistakes” but are merely examples of free organisms designing their own way of surviving. Bacteria or deviant cells that kill us by feeding on us are no different from all the other life forms that survive by killing. Do you see all carnivores as “mistakes” your all-powerful God didn’t want but couldn’t correct?

DAVID: I'm referring to metabolic errors that can kill, while you remain off that point. God edited to prevent them.

And in some cases – despite being all-powerful – he failed to do so. The “metabolic errors” were included under “deviant cells”, and I am suggesting that the diseases that kill, like everything else that kills, are the result of the freedom of choice you have acknowledged as being part of your God’s system.

Importance of pathogens
dhw:. If accidents can cause your God to “change course”, then it is illogical to claim that he had planned everything in advance and was always in total control.

DAVID: He obviously planned for the great oxygenation event. But some events certainly seem at random like the course of each asteroid now flying around the solar system.

You can pick and choose as much as you like, but you cannot dispute the logic of my statement.

DAVID: We can only try to define God's personality by His actions in what He created. And chose purposeful or not.

dhw:: I answered this yesterday: “ "David’s God designed every species” is an action. How does that define his personality? You’re making a mockery of language. A personality is defined by words that describe it! For example, you think your God is “kindly” and so you dismiss any “unkindly” interpretation of his actions”.

DAVID: Off point as usual. His actions producing unexpected humans shows God's purpose (Adler)

dhw: You seem to have forgotten that you were telling me we can only define your God’s PERSONALITY by his actions. Of course you can extrapolate purpose from his actions. In that case, his actions of producing the unexpected brontosaurus and every other unexpected extinct life form that had no connection with humans and their foods show his purpose. So do tell us what that purpose was. (Adler apparently doesn’t cover that.)

Amnesia! Adler uses God's purposeful production of highly unusual humans as a result of evoution to prove God.

DAVID: God gave us the only system that would work, recognized the probability of errors and added editing which works properly into the trillions of reactions required every nanosecond.

dhw: I have repeatedly replied that you cannot possibly know that your all-powerful God was unable to design a system without errors, and I suggest that your all-powerful God designed the system that he WANTED – and what you call errors were not errors but were/are life forms using their freedom to find their own ways of survival.

DAVID: So you ignore mistakes that kill?

dhw: I have said they are not “mistakes” but are merely examples of free organisms designing their own way of surviving. Bacteria or deviant cells that kill us by feeding on us are no different from all the other life forms that survive by killing. Do you see all carnivores as “mistakes” your all-powerful God didn’t want but couldn’t correct?

I'm referring to metabolic errors that can kill, while you remain off that point. God edited to prevent them.

Importance of pathogens

DAVID: All we can know is Chixculub caused a major change in course. It may have been part of His plan.

dhw: But you are now allowing for the possibility that your God did not control all the environmental changes that caused a “major change in course”. In which case, it’s possible that he changed course in response to events that were not planned or under his control.

DAVID: All I am allowing is Schroeder proposed God might have thrown it, and I agree about this one episode.

dhw: You wrote: “Chixculub is his doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence.” You can say the same about every environmental change!

DAVID: Look at another change in environmental conditions:

dhw: Why? Your new example does not tell us whether or not your God designs every environmental change or responds to accidents. If accidents can cause your God to “change course”, then it is illogical to claim that he had planned everything in advance and was always in total control. Your diffuse comment at the end does not add anything new to the discussion.

He obviously planned for the great oxygenation event. But some events certainly seem at random like the course of each asteroid now flying around the solar system.

DAVID: Those comparisons are guesswork and do not reflect His sense of purpose in creation.

All our theories can be called “guesswork”, including that of God’s existence. All my theistic alternatives offer “purpose”, and it remains absurd to dismiss them as “humanizing” when you agree that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: God doesn't have to experiment or deviate. Humanizing again.

It is your theory that has him deviating (he only wants humans, but designs countless life forms etc. that have no connection with humans). Experimenting in order to produce a particular life form would be a logical explanation for producing all the other life forms that you can’t explain. It is only ONE of my explanations,which you agree are logical, but you seem to think you have a unique insight into God’s mind: namely, although you can’t tell us his thought patterns and emotions, you just happen to know what thought patterns and emotions he doesn’t have.

DAVID: We can only try to define God's personality by His actions in what He created. And chose purposeful or not.

dhw:: I answered this yesterday: “ "David’s God designed every species” is an action. How does that define his personality? You’re making a mockery of language. A personality is defined by words that describe it! For example, you think your God is “kindly” and so you dismiss any “unkindly” interpretation of his actions”.

DAVID: Off point as usual. His actions producing unexpected humans shows God's purpose (Adler)

You seem to have forgotten that you were telling me we can only define your God’s PERSONALITY by his actions. Of course you can extrapolate purpose from his actions. In that case, his actions of producing the unexpected brontosaurus and every other unexpected extinct life form that had no connection with humans and their foods show his purpose. So do tell us what that purpose was. (Adler apparently doesn’t cover that.)

DAVID: God gave us the only system that would work, recognized the probability of errors and added editing which works properly into the trillions of reactions required every nanosecond.

dhw: I have repeatedly replied that you cannot possibly know that your all-powerful God was unable to design a system without errors, and I suggest that your all-powerful God designed the system that he WANTED – and what you call errors were not errors but were/are life forms using their freedom to find their own ways of survival.

DAVID: So you ignore mistakes that kill?

I have said they are not “mistakes” but are merely examples of free organisms designing their own way of surviving. Bacteria or deviant cells that kill us by feeding on us are no different from all the other life forms that survive by killing. Do you see all carnivores as “mistakes” your all-powerful God didn’t want but couldn’t correct?

Importance of pathogens
Phages killing bacteria used in therapy:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2304997-phage-therapies-for-superbug-infections-ar...
QUOTE: Phages are specific to particular bacteria, and those bacteria can quickly evolve resistance,

A wonderful example of how organisms adapt in the constant struggle for survival. If God exists, he must have invented this marvellously flexible machinery used by all life forms, but I find it very hard to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he equipped all of them with individual instructions for every new tactic and every new response to every new tactic for the rest of history.

DAVID: God is the designer, as I theorize, and as such designed every new stage of evolution. What is illogical about that?

dhw: Nothing. As usual you have left out your belief that every new stage of evolution, including all those that had no connection with humans, was part of his goal of evolving humans plus food. This diversionary strategy of yours has become almost painful. Please stop it.

DAVID: I don't have to repeat what you already know about my theology.

But I do, because you constantly leave out this part of your theology, which makes no sense even to you.

DAVID: All we can know is Chixculub caused a major change in course. It may have been part of His plan.

dhw: But you are now allowing for the possibility that your God did not control all the environmental changes that caused a “major change in course”. In which case, it’s possible that he changed course in response to events that were not planned or under his control.

DAVID: All I am allowing is Schroeder proposed God might have thrown it, and I agree about this one episode.

dhw: You wrote: “Chixculub is his doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence.” You can say the same about every environmental change!

DAVID: Look at another change in environmental conditions:

Why? Your new example does not tell us whether or not your God designs every environmental change or responds to accidents. If accidents can cause your God to “change course”, then it is illogical to claim that he had planned everything in advance and was always in total control. Your diffuse comment at the end does not add anything new to the discussion.

dhw: But you are now allowing for the possibility that your God did not control all the environmental changes that caused a “major change in course”. In which case, it’s possible that he changed course in response to events that were not planned or under his control.

DAVID: All I am allowing is Schroeder proposed God might have thrown it, and I agree about this one episode.

dhw: You wrote: “Chixculub is his doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence.” You can say the same about every environmental change!

Look at another change in environmental conditions:

https://phys.org/news/2022-01-ocean-productivity-decline-abruptly-million.html

"By drilling deep down into sediments on the ocean floor researchers can travel back in time. A research team led from Uppsala University now presents new clues as to when and why a period often referred to as the 'biogenic bloom' came to an abrupt end. Changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun may have played a part in the dramatic change.

"Healthy ocean systems contain healthy primary producers, such as the single-celled algae diatoms and coccolithophores, which sustain all other life in the oceans through the marine food webs. Primary producers also release oxygen and regulate the climate by taking up CO2 and binding carbon into solid components that are buried in deep-sea sediments, which is an effective long-term solution for carbon removal from the atmosphere.

"Most of these algae use sunlight, CO2 and inorganic nutrients to build up their body mass. However, these nutrients are quickly exhausted in the sun-lit surface waters, if not replenished by ocean mixing or renewed by river supply.

***

"For many decades, geoscientists have known about an extended period of time when ocean productivity was much higher than today. This occurred during the late Miocene to early Pliocene (from 9 to 3.5 million years ago) and the period is often called the 'biogenic bloom.' However, to date, scientists still do not fully understand the reasons why productivity was so much higher in the past, or why this period came to an end.

***

"The sediments studied by Karatsolis and colleagues were recovered from 200–350 meters below the seafloor on the northwestern Australian shelf. The researchers measured the accumulation rates of biogenic particles and combined their data with those previously collected using similar methods at 16 additional locations. The accuracy of the ages of each dataset was first critically assessed, to ensure reliable comparisons across the different regions.

"Their results show that productivity declined abruptly 4.6 million years ago in the tropics. A possible explanation for this rapid decrease may involve reduced East Asian monsoon intensity and decreased riverine nutrient supply, coinciding with changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. (my bold)

***

"Understanding the natural pace of past events provides a good comparative measuring stick for the changes we observe in our environment today," says Boris-Theofanis Karatsolis." (my bold)

Comment: I doubt God controls every aspect of rainfall. (first bold) This did not seem to change the course of evolution and adds evidence that God's control is not purposefully constant in agreement with you. Chixculub remains a question concerning God's role. My other point is study of ecosystems tells us a great deal about the evolutionary process. (second bold) And all parts of evolution are related and can be used to study old or new events by comparison.

dhw: If he has thought patterns and emotions and logic like ours, and we mimic him, it is absurd to say that he is not “in any way” human.

Those comparisons are guesswork and do not reflect His sense of purpose in creation.

DAVID: I'm describing a purposeful God who knows exactly what He is doing, vastly different from the one you describe as you imagine possibilities for some sort of God.

dhw: You keep repeating this, and I keep repeating that a God who deliberately creates a free-for-all, or experiments, or tries new things out of interest, knows exactly what he is doing.

God doesn't have to experiment or deviate. Humanizing again.

DAVID: We can only try to define God's personality by His actions in what He created. And chose purposeful or not.

I answered this yesterday: “ "David’s God designed every species” is an action. How does that define his personality? You’re making a mockery of language. A personality is defined by words that describe it! For example, you think your God is “kindly” and so you dismiss any “unkindly” interpretation of his actions”.

Off point as usual. His actions producing unexpected humans shows God's purpose (Adler)

DAVID: The biochemistry of life works in a required soupy state where molecules are free to react improperly. [..]

dhw: So you agree that the molecules are free.

DAVID: Not totally free. They are built to fold and react automatically in a liquid environment in which there cannot be control restraints to monitor every change, because that would slow the necessary speed of the reactions.

dhw: Every species depends on automatic conformity to a pattern. But there has to be a degree of freedom for adaptation to new conditions and the production of new organs and organisms, and this same degree of freedom can lead to all the nasty diseases your all-powerful God did not have the power to control.

DAVID: You didn't respond to my discussion of molecular actions, but side-slipped into theodicy again. God gave us the only system that would work, recognized the probability of errors and added editing which works properly into the trillions of reactions required every nanosecond.

dhw: I have repeatedly replied that you cannot possibly know that your all-powerful God was unable to design a system without errors, and I suggest that your all-powerful God designed the system that he WANTED – and what you call errors were not errors but were/are life forms using their freedom to find their own ways of survival.

So you ignore mistakes that kill?

dhw: I have never claimed to be a biochemist, but I know enough to understand and accept the logic of the design argument. You don’t need to hammer this point home, but I’m happy to keep learning. However, I’m not happy when you try to switch the subject from the illogical flaws in your theistic theory of evolution to the logical use of life's complexity as evidence of your God’s existence. They are two different subjects.

DAVID: God is the designer, as I theorize, and as such designed every new stage of evolution. What is illogical about that?

dhw: Nothing. As usual you have left out your belief that every new stage of evolution, including all those that had no connection with humans, was part of his goal of evolving humans plus food. This diversionary strategy of yours has become almost painful. Please stop it.

I don't have to repeat what you already know about my theology.

DAVID: We differ in that my God is purposeful in action, and yours has to experiment, allow free-for-alls and seeks entertainment in very unGodly ways.

dhw: How do you know what is “godly”? In all my alternative theories, my God is just as purposeful as yours, but you disapprove of him having thought patterns and emotions like ours, even though you believe he has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

Off point as usual. Your imagined God personality is vastly different from mine. Years ago I commented we would never agree on Him. His is pure purpose with some probable attributes that we mimic.

DAVID: Again God's comparative thought patterns like ours do not make Him in any way human.

If he has thought patterns and emotions and logic like ours, and we mimic him, it is absurd to say that he is not “in any way” human.

DAVID: I'm describing a purposeful God who knows exactly what He is doing, vastly different from the one you describe as you imagine possibilities for some sort of God.

You keep repeating this, and I keep repeating that a God who deliberately creates a free-for-all, or experiments, or tries new things out of interest, knows exactly what he is doing.

DAVID: My God is purposeful with known end points from the beginning. Yours is not based on your description of His actions. Actions define personality. Terms are just descriptions.

dhw: If God exists, of course he must have had a purpose in creating life. Why plural “endpoints”? Your ONLY purpose is the creation of humans plus their food, and you can’t explain why he would have designed the rest. All my alternatives (free-for-all, experimenting, getting new ideas) are purposeful! Finally, actions are not definitions!

DAVID: Wildly diffuse. We can only try to define God's personality by His actions in what He created. And chose purposeful or not.

I answered this yesterday: “ "David’s God designed every species” is an action. How does that define his personality? You’re making a mockery of language. A personality is defined by words that describe it! For example, you think your God is “kindly” and so you dismiss any “unkindly” interpretation of his actions”.

DAVID: All we can know is Chixculub caused a major change in course. It may have been part of His plan.

dhw: But you are now allowing for the possibility that your God did not control all the environmental changes that caused a “major change in course”. In which case, it’s possible that he changed course in response to events that were not planned or under his control.

DAVID: All I am allowing is Schroeder proposed God might have thrown it, and I agree about this one episode.

You wrote: “Chixculub is his doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence.” You can say the same about every environmental change!

DAVID: The biochemistry of life works in a required soupy state where molecules are free to react improperly. [..]

dhw: So you agree that the molecules are free.

DAVID: Not totally free. They are built to fold and react automatically in a liquid environment in which there cannot be control restraints to monitor every change, because that would slow the necessary speed of the reactions.

dhw: Every species depends on automatic conformity to a pattern. But there has to be a degree of freedom for adaptation to new conditions and the production of new organs and organisms, and this same degree of freedom can lead to all the nasty diseases your all-powerful God did not have the power to control.

DAVID: You didn't respond to my discussion of molecular actions, but side-slipped into theodicy again. God gave us the only system that would work, recognized the probability of errors and added editing which works properly into the trillions of reactions required every nanosecond.

I have repeatedly replied that you cannot possibly know that your all-powerful God was unable to design a system without errors, and I suggest that your all-powerful God designed the system that he WANTED – and what you call errors were not errors but were/are life forms using their freedom to find their own ways of survival.

dhw: I have never claimed to be a biochemist, but I know enough to understand and accept the logic of the design argument. You don’t need to hammer this point home, but I’m happy to keep learning. However, I’m not happy when you try to switch the subject from the illogical flaws in your theistic theory of evolution to the logical use of life's complexity as evidence of your God’s existence. They are two different subjects.

DAVID: God is the designer, as I theorize, and as such designed every new stage of evolution. What is illogical about that?

Nothing. As usual you have left out your belief that every new stage of evolution, including all those that had no connection with humans, was part of his goal of evolving humans plus food. This diversionary strategy of yours has become almost painful. Please stop it.

DAVID: We differ in that my God is purposeful in action, and yours has to experiment, allow free-for-alls and seeks entertainment in very unGodly ways.

How do you know what is “godly”? In all my alternative theories, my God is just as purposeful as yours, but you disapprove of him having thought patterns and emotions like ours, even though you believe he has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: In no way do I consider God like a human.

dhw: You have repeatedly agreed that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and we mimic him, and you even dismissed one of my theories because you believe your God to be too “kindly” to wish us harm.

From the other thread today: " God's comparative thought patterns like ours do not make Him in any way human. I'm describing a purposeful God who knows exactly what He is doing, vastly different from the one you describe as you imagine possibilities for some sort of God." Please discuss God's personality to stay on point.

DAVID: My God is purposeful with known end points from the beginning. Yours is not based on your description of His actions. Actions define personality. Terms are just descriptions.

dhw: If God exists, of course he must have had a purpose in creating life. Why plural “endpoints”? Your ONLY purpose is the creation of humans plus their food, and you can’t explain why he would have designed the rest. All my alternatives (free-for-all, experimenting, getting new ideas) are purposeful! Finally, actions are not definitions!

Wildly diffuse. We can only try to define God's personality by His actions in what He created. And chose purposeful or not.

DAVID: All we can know is Chixculub caused a major change in course. It may have been part of His plan.

Dhw: But you are now allowing for the possibility that your God did not control all the environmental changes that caused a “major change in course”. In which case, it’s possible that he changed course in response to events that were not planned or under his control.

All I am allowing is Schroeder proposed God might have thrown it, and I agree about this one episode.

DAVID: The biochemistry of life works in a required soupy state where molecules are free to react improperly. [..]

dhw: So you agree that the molecules are free.

DAVID: Not totally free. They are built to fold and react automatically in a liquid environment in which there cannot be control restraints to monitor every change, because that would slow the necessary speed of the reactions.

dhw: Every species depends on automatic conformity to a pattern. But there has to be a degree of freedom for adaptation to new conditions and the production of new organs and organisms, and this same degree of freedom can lead to all the nasty diseases your all-powerful God did not have the power to control.

You didn't respond to my discussion of molecular actions, but side-slipped into theodicy again. God gave us the only system that would work, recognized the probability of errors and added editing which works properly into the trillions of reactions required every nanosecond.

DAVID: The origin of life requires highly technical reactions, not possible without guidance. Read James Tour's current article to see that.

dhw: You constantly try to divert attention from the flaws in your theory of evolution by emphasizing the design case for the existence of God. I have never questioned the logic of this, and it is one reason why I’m an agnostic and not an atheist. I’ve also explained many times why I'm an agnostic and not a theist.

DAVID: Not a diversion. It is my attempt to introduce you to the complexity of living biochemistry by actually seeing examples Tour presents. You start with no knowledge of this, but then comment as if you do.

dhw: I have never claimed to be a biochemist, but I know enough to understand and accept the logic of the design argument. You don’t need to hammer this point home, but I’m happy to keep learning. However, I’m not happy when you try to switch the subject from the illogical flaws in your theistic theory of evolution to the logical use of life's complexity as evidence of your God’s existence. They are two different subjects.

God is the designer, as I theorize, and as such designed every new stage of evolution. What is illogical about that? We differ in that my God is purposeful in action, and yours has to experiment, allow free-for-alls and seeks entertainment in very unGodly ways.

DAVID: In no way do I consider God like a human.

You have repeatedly agreed that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and we mimic him, and you even dismissed one of my theories because you believe your God to be too “kindly” to wish us harm. Please stop backtracking.

DAVID: My God is purposeful with known end points from the beginning. Yours is not based on your description of His actions. Actions define personality. Terms are just descriptions.

If God exists, of course he must have had a purpose in creating life. Why plural “endpoints”? Your ONLY purpose is the creation of humans plus their food, and you can’t explain why he would have designed the rest. All my alternatives (free-for-all, experimenting, getting new ideas) are purposeful! Finally, actions are not definitions! “David’s God designed every species” is an action. How does that define his personality? You’re making a mockery of language. A personality is defined by words that describe it! For example, you think your God is “kindly”, and so you dismiss any “unkindly” interpretation of his actions.

dhw: (Even you agreed that he liked unpredictability.)

DAVID: Another gross distortion. The unpredictability referred only to watching free-willed humans as a possibility I made about God's desires.

I wrote: “So maybe he created surprising, unpredictable human beings and “likely watches” them, because he wanted to create something surprising and unpredictable to watch. Ditto the rest of evolution […]” You replied: “I can’t disagree to this form.” Please stop backtracking.

DAVID: […] Chixculub is His doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence.

dhw: If there were “accidents”, you can hardly avoid the conclusion that your God reacted to them, as opposed to his advance planning and knowledge of all new life forms and econiches (the majority of which were unconnected with humans plus food).

DAVID: All we can know is Chixculub caused a major change in course. It may have been part of His plan.

But you are now allowing for the possibility that your God did not control all the environmental changes that caused a “major change in course”. In which case, it’s possible that he changed course in response to events that were not planned or under his control.

DAVID: The basic chemistry started with many required mechanisms and reactions in the startup bacteria and were added to as complexity of life forms increased. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: I agree. The mechanisms for flexibility and for reacting to environmental change must have been there from the beginning. That is a far cry from the theory that every response to every environmental change was either planned in advance or individually dabbled.

DAVID: Another response of distortion. Knowing how to proceed stepwise from the beginning is my point about God. Set a foundation of processes in Bacteria at first. Pure logic.

We’re not talking about “knowing”. The “foundation of processes” can only be the mechanisms that produce the processes, and I agree that they must have been there from the beginning. You say he preprogrammed or dabbled with them to produce every life form etc. (though he only wanted humans plus food), and I propose (theistic version) that he designed them to respond autonomously to different conditions. Both theories are based on your bolded observation above.

DAVID: The biochemistry of life works in a required soupy state where molecules are free to react improperly. [..]

dhw: So you agree that the molecules are free.

DAVID: Not totally free. They are built to fold and react automatically in a liquid environment in which there cannot be control restraints to monitor every change, because that would slow the necessary speed of the reactions.

Every species depends on automatic conformity to a pattern. But there has to be a degree of freedom for adaptation to new conditions and the production of new organs and organisms, and this same degree of freedom can lead to all the nasty diseases your all-powerful God did not have the power to control.

DAVID: The origin of life requires highly technical reactions, not possible without guidance. Read James Tour's current article to see that.

dhw: You constantly try to divert attention from the flaws in your theory of evolution by emphasizing the design case for the existence of God. I have never questioned the logic of this, and it is one reason why I’m an agnostic and not an atheist. I’ve also explained many times why I'm an agnostic and not a theist.

DAVID: Not a diversion. It is my attempt to introduce you to the complexity of living biochemistry by actually seeing examples Tour presents. You start with no knowledge of this, but then comment as if you do.

I have never claimed to be a biochemist, but I know enough to understand and accept the logic of the design argument. You don’t need to hammer this point home, but I’m happy to keep learning. However, I’m not happy when you try to switch the subject from the illogical flaws in your theistic theory of evolution to the logical use of life's complexity as evidence of your God’s existence. They are two different subjects.

DAVID: Back to your weak God not in total control He doesn't want.

dhw: So why is a free-for-all “humanizing”, but wanting full control is not? Why is experimenting to create a being like himself “weak” and “humanizing”, but wanting to create a being like himself is not “weak” or “humanizing” if he creates countless beings not like himself? How can we "define personality" without using “personality terms”, as you do?

My God is purposeful with known end points from the beginning. Yours is not based on your description of His actions. Actions define personality. Terms are just descriptions.

DAVID: My position, based what reality contains [...] is as follows: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, sees the future as it will turn out, and is very purposeful in His actions to achieve His desired goals.

dhw: You only name one goal: to design humans plus their food. Strangely enough, my all-powerful God is also very purposeful: he wants and gets a free-for-all, or experiments in order to create a being like himself or to learn new things. But he's not all-knowing. (Even you agreed that he liked unpredictability.)

Another gross distortion. The unpredictability referred only to watching free-willed humans as a possibility I made about God's desires. Your God's purposes are pure uncertainty about future goals. A weak God as usual.

DAVID: In evolution He works stepwise, as the mechanism of photosynthesis demonstrates. That came first and all the complex organisms followed. The stepwise arrangement may or may not cover the other aspects of environment. Stepwise biochemistry is obvious. But Chixculub is His doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence.

dhw: If there were “accidents”, you can hardly avoid the conclusion that your God reacted to them, as opposed to his advance planning and knowledge of all new life forms and econiches (the majority of which were unconnected with humans plus food).

All we can know is Chixculub caused a major change in course. It may have been part of His plan.

DAVID: The basic chemistry started with many required mechanisms and reactions in the startup bacteria and were added to as complexity of life forms increased.

dhw: I agree. The mechanisms for flexibility and for reacting to environmental change must have been there from the beginning. That is a far cry from the theory that every response to every environmental change was either planned in advance or individually dabbled.

Another response of distortion. Knowing how to proceed stepwise from the beginning is my point about God. Set a foundation of processes in Bacteria at first. Pure logic.

DAVID: The biochemistry of life works in a required soupy state where molecules are free to react improperly. It cannot be at the required high speed without molecules freedom of reaction.

dhw: So you agree that the molecules are free.

Not totally free. They are built to fold and react automatically in a liquid environment in which there cannot be control restraints to monitor every change, because that would slow the necessary speed of the reactions.

DAVID: The origin of life requires highly technical reactions, not possible without guidance. Read James Tour's current article to see that.

dhw: You constantly try to divert attention from the flaws in your theory of evolution by emphasizing the design case for the existence of God. I have never questioned the logic of this, and it is one reason why I’m an agnostic and not an atheist. I’ve also explained many times why I'm an agnostic and not a theist.

Not a diversion. It is my attempt to introduce you to the complexity of living biochemistry by actually seeing examples Tour presents. You start with no knowledge of this, but then comment as if you do.

DAVID: We are here. Adler and I see the role of God very clearly. So should all clear thinking folks.

dhw: You have told us that Adler emphasizes the specialness of humans in order to put the case for the existence of God. That does not explain your illogical theory concerning your God’s “role” in evolution, or your purposeful God’s purpose for designing humans, and it tells us nothing about your God’s nature that does not “humanize” him in exactly the same way as my own speculations “humanize” him. Fortunately, however, you have again confirmed your belief that we probably have thought patterns, emotions and logic in common with your God, so at least we should have heard the last cry of "humanization" when I propose a different "humanization" from your own.

In no way do I consider God like a human. Adler uses God's purpose of creating humans as proof of God. Our disagreement about God revolved entirely about the appearance of purpose in God's actions. Your so-called God likes free-for-alls and experimenting. That is a God who does not see purposeful endpoints from the beginning. In contrast Adler's God and mine is purely purposeful

dhw: I have no idea why you have suddenly decided that “humanizing” no longer refers to your use of such terms as “kindly”, or "interested” or “enjoy” or “wanting to have his work admired” or “to have a relationship with us”, though I do understand your burning desire to change the subject.

DAVID: Personality terms have nothing to do with comparisons of purposeful actions to define underlying personality. So you dodge the point.
And later:
DAVID: Back to your weak God not in total control He doesn't want.

So why is a free-for-all “humanizing”, but wanting full control is not? Why is experimenting to create a being like himself “weak” and “humanizing”, but wanting to create a being like himself is not “weak” or “humanizing” if he creates countless beings not like himself? How can we "define personality" without using “personality terms”, as you do?

DAVID: My all-powerful and all-knowing God knows exactly what to do, what he wants and directly does it.

How can you say that your God wants humans and their food and does it “directly" by designing countless life forms that have no connection with humans and their food? […]

DAVID: My position, based what reality contains [...] is as follows: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, sees the future as it will turn out, and is very purposeful in His actions to achieve His desired goals.

You only name one goal: to design humans plus their food. Strangely enough, my all-powerful God is also very purposeful: he wants and gets a free-for-all, or experiments in order to create a being like himself or to learn new things. But he's not all-knowing. (Even you agreed that he liked unpredictability.)

DAVID: In evolution He works stepwise, as the mechanism of photosynthesis demonstrates. That came first and all the complex organisms followed. The stepwise arrangement may or may not cover the other aspects of environment. Stepwise biochemistry is obvious. But Chixculub is His doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence.

If there were “accidents”, you can hardly avoid the conclusion that your God reacted to them, as opposed to his advance planning and knowledge of all new life forms and econiches (the majority of which were unconnected with humans plus food).

DAVID: The basic chemistry started with many required mechanisms and reactions in the startup bacteria and were added to as complexity of life forms increased.

I agree. The mechanisms for flexibility and for reacting to environmental change must have been there from the beginning. That is a far cry from the theory that every response to every environmental change was either planned in advance or individually dabbled.

DAVID: That God was very concerned about problems. […] The editing systems follow the same thought patterns, which dhw ignores and disparages. There are many trillions of reactions per second in living forms, with a tiny error level, when the editing fails, a miniscule failure rate in the only system God could design to create life.
And:
DAVID: God invented the only system that works.

It is your illogical assumption that an all-powerful and all-knowing God was unable to invent a system without errors he didn’t want and couldn't correct. I do not regard the diseases resulting from the “failure” rate as minuscule.

DAVID: The biochemistry of life works in a required soupy state where molecules are free to react improperly. It cannot be at the required high speed without molecules freedom of reaction.

So you agree that the molecules are free. I propose that an all-powerful God would not design or have to design something he did not want. Therefore I propose that he WANTED the freedom you have described in order to create the unpredictable diversity of life’s bush, and the “improper” reactions are only “improper” to us. The cells themselves are simply designing their own means of survival. Your only objection is that your humanized God is too kindly to want "improper reactions".

DAVID: The origin of life requires highly technical reactions, not possible without guidance. Read James Tour's current article to see that.

You constantly try to divert attention from the flaws in your theory of evolution by emphasizing the design case for the existence of God. I have never questioned the logic of this, and it is one reason why I’m an agnostic and not an atheist. I’ve also explained many times why I'm an agnostic and not a theist.

DAVID: We are here. Adler and I see the role of God very clearly. So should all clear thinking folks.

You have told us that Adler emphasizes the specialness of humans in order to put the case for the existence of God. That does not explain your illogical theory concerning your God’s “role” in evolution, or your purposeful God’s purpose for designing humans, and it tells us nothing about your God’s nature that does not “humanize” him in exactly the same way as my own speculations “humanize” him.Fortunately, however, you have again confirmed your belief that we probably have thought patterns, emotions and logic in common with your God, so at least we should have heard the last cry of "humanization" when I propose a different "humanization" from your own.

My position, based what reality contains, assuming God created it, is as follows: God is all-powerful, all-knowing, sees the future as it will turn out, and is very purposeful in His actions to achieve His desired goals. I cannot see Him as otherwise considering how much Complexity He created before He got around to creating a living system. He obviously prefers to create by evolving His objects, as history shows.

In evolution He works stepwise, as the mechanism of photosynthesis demonstrates. That came first and all the complex organisms followed. The stepwise arrangement may or may not cover the other aspects of environment. Stepwise biochemistry is obvious. But Chixculub is His doing or accidental, as there is no clear evidence. The basic chemistry started with many required mechanisms and reactions in the startup bacteria and were added to as complexity of life forms increased. That God was very concerned about problems, He saw oxygen as the best fuel burner for life, but He understood its dangers. It can severely damage if uncontrolled.

Not surprisingly, we are supplied with many antioxident mechanisms and chemicals in God's designs. The editing systems follow the same thought patterns, which dhw ignores and disparages. There are many trillions of reactions per second in living forms, with a tiny error level, when the editing fails, a miniscule failure rate in the only system God could design to create life. The God I describe would fully understand His position ion the possibilities. The biochemistry of life works in a required soupy state where molecules are free to react improperly. It cannot be at the required high speed without molecules freedom of reaction. All biochemists know this.

The origin of life requires highly technical reactions, not possible without guidance. Read James Tour's current article to see that. I apologize in advance for the technical jargon:

https://inference-review.com/article/much-ado-about-nothing

The article was presented here previously. If God handled all of these intricacies, and we have life, He knew exactly what He was doing.

"These notions and the RNA world hypothesis itself have proven remarkably durable, even though they fail to account for the prebiotic chemical difficulties involving in creating a homochiral ribonucleoside; the thermal instability of RNA, which decomposes rapidly, even at 0°C; the fact that even specifically designed and primed RNAs have never been shown to duplicate more than 7% of themselves, and that those segments were found to be too short to serve as new templates; the difficulties involved in separating RNA-RNA duplexes, which impede further reactions; the role played by non-canonical 2′,5′-linkages that are routinely obtained in 20–80% yields, retard subsequent templated utility, and play no part in translation and transcription.

"The new RDNA world hypothesis only resolves one of these issues: the RNA-RNA sticky-duplex problem. For all these reasons, it is very difficult to accept the claims being made about the significance of this new research. As it stands, the prospects for the RDNA world hypothesis appear bleak."

We are here. Adler and I see the role of God very clearly. So should all clear thinking folks.

dhw: So God only wanted to design humans plus lunch and therefore designed all the other organisms and their lunches, most of which had nothing to do with humans. And the fact that evolutionary adaptations and innovations enable organisms to survive, and lead to new species, shows us that survival makes no direct contribution to evolution.

DAVID: That summarized my belief.

So the process whereby the quest for survival leads to adaptations etc. which in turn lead to new species proves that the quest for survival makes no contribution to the evolution of new species. I don’t think this theory of yours is going to find many followers.

Transferred from Miscellany
dhw: Please tell us why you think [edited later] adaptation to new conditions, new methods of catching prey, defence strategies, dealing with disease etc. have no connection with survival, and why you are convinced that less efficient life forms are just as likely to survive as more efficient life forms.

DAVID: You are still confused about my view of survival as it relates to evolution. All organisms try to survive as you describe, and forms live or die by bad genes or bad luck with Raup supporting bad luck. Species die out for many reasons.

The subject is not the causes of extinction, though I propose that one of these is that a more efficient life form is likely to replace its less efficient antecedent. I have asked you why you think the less efficient form is just as likely to survive as its more efficient form. See above for your belief that adaptations, new methods etc., designed to improve chances of survival and leading to new species, have no connection with the evolution of new species.

Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently
DAVID: And Egnor who agrees with me, or me with him. 40% of physicians are believers.

dhw: So 60% aren’t, which makes it absurd for you to use your “fair evaluation” of science as a support for your minority views.

DAVID: When 90% of scientists are atheists, 40% of physicians is impressive, strongly influenced by the miracle of the human body.

But it doesn’t exactly confirm that your “fair” evaluation of science makes the other 90% of opposing evaluations unfair.

DAVID: Most of your beliefs fit atheism , as I view them. I know your belief problems include NDE's.

dhw: Then you have no idea what agnosticism is all about. I do not have beliefs as regards God’s existence or nature or purpose. I offer different theories. I find those concerning a first cause equally unsatisfactory. As regards NDEs, they are not the only psychic experiences people can have. There is a wide range, and even allowing for fraud and for self-deception, I take some of them extremely seriously.

DAVID: Thank you for further explanation of your agnosticism.

I hope this will mark the end of your assertions that any theistic theory contrary to your own is atheistic.

DAVID: Still no real response to my point. The purpose of ever-complex stages of organisms from a bacterial start is to finally design fully thinking humans. Individual survival serves that real purpose, but makes no direct contribution to evolution as a process.

dhw: So God only wanted to design humans plus lunch and therefore designed all the other organisms and their lunches, most of which had nothing to do with humans. And the fact that evolutionary adaptations and innovations enable organisms to survive, and lead to new species, shows us that survival makes no direct contribution to evolution.

That summarized my belief.

Theodicy: bad bacteria seen differently

DAVID: And Egnor who agrees with me, or me with him. 40% of physicians are believers.

dhw: So 60% aren’t, which makes it absurd for you to use your “fair evaluation” of science as a support for your minority views.

When 90% of scientists are atheists, 40% of physicians is impressive, strongly influenced by the miracle of the human body.

DAVID: Most of your beliefs fit atheism , as I view them. I know your belief problems include NDE's.

dhw: Then you have no idea what agnosticism is all about. I do not have beliefs as regards God’s existence or nature or purpose. I offer different theories. I find those concerning a first cause equally unsatisfactory. As regards NDEs, they are not the only psychic experiences people can have. There is a wide range, and even allowing for fraud and for self-deception, I take some of them extremely seriously.

Thank you for further explanation of your agnosticism.