DAVID: You have simply concluded with my point. Death is expected to happen. Expectedly the instructions will not be adequate.

dhw: A wonderful tribute to your God’s efficiency! We ought to know that when your omnipotent, omniscient God issues instructions, they may fail. But you won’t consider the possibility that the fault may lie in the cells themselves.

DAVID: No. cell death is coded in when necessary and predators may overcome cell defenses that are present.

So your God issues instructions to cells on how to defend themselves against the nasty bugs, but the instructions include not defending themselves against nasty bugs “when necessary”? It’s amazing that ANY cells survive the threats with all these different instructions floating around. I wonder how your God selects which cells are to obey which sets of instructions, since they themselves are apparently incapable of making any decisions.

LUCA

Your one and only point is dealt with on the “evolution” thread.

ID view of natural selection

QUOTE: Whenever materialism cannot come up with any empirically verifiable explanation, it invokes natural selection.

DAVID: natural selection is a worthless tautology.

dhw: Talk about flogghg a dead horse. In the first edition of my brief guide (2007), I pointed out that bbb“Dawkins blithely announces that natural selection ‘explains the whole of life’”,bbb and throughout the history of this website one thing you and I have always agreed on is that natural selection never created anything. It’s simply a useful expression to explain why some species survive and some don’t – according to their ability to cope with existing conditions. It’s not a tautology (which means saying the same thing twice) but perhaos you might call it a truism: those who survive are those who are best equipped to survive. But for me the basic flaws in Darwin’s theory are his reliance on the creativity of random mutations, and his insistence that nature never jumps. The basic truth of the theory (in my opinion) is that of common descent, and it would have been fascinating to know what he might have thought of Shapiro’s theory, which replaces random mutations with cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Darwin would be amazed at our current knowledge and probably join ID.

It would have been interesting to know whether you agree with my summary. But I’m sure Darwin would have welcomed all the new discoveries, and I suspect he would have remained agnostic since we are still no nearer discovering the origin of life.

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

DAVID: You have simply concluded with my point. Death is expected to happen. Expectedly the instructions will not be adequate.

dhw: A wonderful tribute to your God’s efficiency! We ought to know that when your omnipotent, omniscient God issues instructions, they may fail. But you won’t consider the possibility that the fault may lie in the cells themselves.

No. cell death is coded in when necessary and predators may overcome cell defenses that are present .

LUCA

DAVID: You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.

DAVID: Culling is part of any form of evolution producing useful results. It is time you accepted that point. Nothing is/was irrelevant.

dhw: Something is only irrelevant if it has no connection with a particular subject/purpose. In your case, the subject/purpose is us and our food, and 99 out of 100 species did not lead to us and our food. Extinctions and subsequent new species that can cope with the new conditions are the only form of evolution that we know. Your Raup says it all hinges on luck. You say it all hinges on the messy inefficiency of your God. I offer alternatives which you refuse to consider.

Then result of God's evolution is a huge human population with full resources on Earth from His evolutionary process with culling!!!! It is no matter 99.9% were culled to achieve this great result, us and our food.

ID view of natural selection

QUOTE: Whenever materialism cannot come up with any empirically verifiable explanation, it invokes natural selection.

DAVID: natural selection is a worthless tautology.

dhw: Talk about flogghg a dead horse. In the first edition of my brief guide (2007), I pointed out that “Dawkins blithely announces that natural selection ‘explains the whole of life’”, and throughout the history of this website one thing you and I have always agreed on is that natural selection never created anything. It’s simply a useful expression to explain why some species survive and some don’t – according to their ability to cope with existing conditions. It’s not a tautology (which means saying the same thing twice) but perhaos you might call it a truism: those who survive are those who are best equipped to survive. But for me the basic flaws in Darwin’s theory are his reliance on the creativity of random mutations, and his insistence that nature never jumps. The basic truth of the theory (in my opinion) is that of common descent, and it would have been fascinating to know what he might have thought of Shapiro’s theory, which replaces random mutations with cellular intelligence.

Darwin would be amazed at our current knowledge and probably join ID.

DAVID: Life is not perfect as produced by God. Death is an expected outcome. No one lives forever.

dhw: You keep repeating the obvious and ignoring the point at issue, just as you do when we discuss theodicy. Yes, death, suffering and evil are all REAL. In the context of this particular discussion, you tell us that in order to repel invaders, cells automatically obey your God’s instructions. I point out that cells frequently fail to repel invaders, so what does that tell us about your God’s instructions? Then you dodge and doge and dodge. But you said that cells have the ability to change when required, which could suggest that their ability has nothing to do with instructions, and refers solely to their autonomous ability to process information and make decisions on what actions to take. Sometimes THEY will get it wrong. THEY are not supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.

DAVID: No dodge. You have simply concluded with my point. Death is expected to happen. Expectedly the instructions will not be adequate.

A wonderful tribute to your God’s efficiency! We ought to know that when your omnipotent, omniscient God issues instructions, they may fail. But you won’t consider the possibility that the fault may lie in the cells themselves.

LUCA

DAVID: You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.

dhw: You accuse me of ignoring the biochemistry. I give you a complete response, and so you ignore it and change the subject back to one that has already been demolished time after time: current numbers are descended from the 0.1% survivors out of the 100% that ever existed, 99.9% of which were irrelevant to us and our food. Even the fact that we use whatever resources are here does mean that we would die without them. Many are useful, but not necessary. Now please explain why your perfect God had to create and cull 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. If you can’t, then please say so and stop changing the subject.

DAVID: Culling is part of any form of evolution producing useful results. It is time you accepted that point. Nothing is/was irrelevant.

Something is only irrelevant if it has no connection with a particular subject/purpose. In your case, the subject/purpose is us and our food, and 99 out of 100 species did not lead to us and our food. Extinctions and subsequent new species that can cope with the new conditions are the only form of evolution that we know. Your Raup says it all hinges on luck. You say it all hinges on the messy inefficiency of your God. I offer alternatives which you refuse to consider.

What does the universe expand into?

DAVID: so we are left with the concept that the universe expands into itself. There is nothing out there to expand into. Wow! In creating the universe God has left us with puzzles. Not just that the basis of our universe is quantum mechanics.

dhw: If 95% (approx.) of the universe consists of dark matter, and 68% of dark energy – i.e. matter and energy we know nothing about – how do we know WHAT is the basis of our universe? An atheist would argue that in creating God, humans have left us with even more puzzles than a godless universe. We agnostics simply confess that we are puzzled, though that needn’t stop us from looking for clues. Hence this website!

DAVID: Good summary of the puzzle.

Thank you.

ID view of natural selection

QUOTE: Whenever materialism cannot come up with any empirically verifiable explanation, it invokes natural selection.

DAVID: natural selection is a worthless tautology.

Talk about flogghg a dead horse. In the first edition of my brief guide (2007), I pointed out that “Dawkins blithely announces that natural selection ‘explains the whole of life’”, and throughout the history of this website one thing you and I have always agreed on is that natural selection never created anything. It’s simply a useful expression to explain why some species survive and some don’t – according to their ability to cope with existing conditions. It’s not a tautology (which means saying the same thing twice) but perhaos you might call it a truism: those who survive are those who are best equipped to survive. But for me the basic flaws in Darwin’s theory are his reliance on the creativity of random mutations, and his insistence that nature never jumps. The basic truth of the theory (in my opinion) is that of common descent, and it would have been fascinating to know what he might have thought of Shapiro’s theory, which replaces random mutations with cellular intelligence.

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

DAVID: Life is not perfect as produced by God. Death is an expected outcome. No one lives forever.

dhw:c You keep repeating the obvious and ignoring the point at issue, just as you do when we discuss theodicy. Yes, death, suffering and evil are all REAL. In the context of this particular discussion, you tell us that in order to repel invaders, cells automatically obey your God’s instructions. I point out that cells frequently fail to repel invaders, so what does that tell us about your God’s instructions? Then you dodge and doge and dodge. But you said that cells have the ability to change when required, which could suggest that their ability has nothing to do with instructions, and refers solely to their autonomous ability to process information and make decisions on what actions to take. Sometimes THEY will get it wrong. THEY are not supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.

No dodge. You have simply concluded with my point. Death is expected to happen. Expectedly the instructions will not be adequate.

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID: God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.

dhw: God’s purposes and methods are obviously NOT clear since your own interpretation of them leads you to ridicule him as messy and inefficient, whereas I have offered alternative interpretations which allow him to appear perfectly efficient in achieving different purposes from yours, or even the same one.

DAVID: My God produced us by His evolutionary method. He did not enjoy a free-for-all or have to experiment to achieve the goal like you unrecognizable guy.

dhw: Although you accept that all my (and your own) alternative theories relating to your God’s purposes, methods and nature are possible, they are impossible for you because they are different from your own fixed wishes and beliefs, including your astonishing conclusion that your perfect God is a messy and inefficient designer.

Can you describe evolution is any other way ?

LUCA

DAVID: You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.

dhw: You accuse me of ignoring the biochemistry. I give you a complete response, and so you ignore it and change the subject back to one that has already been demolished time after time: current numbers are descended from the 0.1% survivors out of the 100% that ever existed, 99.9% of which were irrelevant to us and our food. Even the fact that we use whatever resources are here does mean that we would die without them. Many are useful, but not necessary. Now please explain why your perfect God had to create and cull 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. If you can’t, then please say so and stop changing the subject.

Culling is part of any form of evolution producing useful results. It is time you accepted that point. Nothing is/was irrelevant.

What does the universe expand into?

DAVID: so we are left with the concept that the universe expands into itself. There is nothing out there to expand into. Wow! In creating the universe God has left us with puzzles. Not just that the basis of our universe is quantum mechanics.

dhw: If 95% (approx.) of the universe consists of dark matter, and 68% of dark energy – i.e. matter and energy we know nothing about – how do we know WHAT is the basis of our universe? An atheist would argue that in creating God, humans have left us with even more puzzles than a godless universe. We agnostics simply confess that we are puzzled, though that needn’t stop us from looking for clues. Hence this website!

Good summary of the puzzle.

dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.

DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.

dhw: Now please explain why cells that follow your omniscient, omnipotent God’s instructions sometimes fail to survive.

DAVID: Life is not perfect as produced by God. Death is an expected outcome. No one lives forever.

You keep repeating the obvious and ignoring the point at issue, just as you do when we discuss theodicy. Yes, death, suffering and evil are all REAL. In the context of this particular discussion, you tell us that in order to repel invaders, cells automatically obey your God’s instructions. I point out that cells frequently fail to repel invaders, so what does that tell us about your God’s instructions? Then you dodge and doge and dodge. But you said that cells have the ability to change when required, which could suggest that their ability has nothing to do with instructions, and refers solely to their autonomous ability to process information and make decisions on what actions to take. Sometimes THEY will get it wrong. THEY are not supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent.

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID: God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.

dhw: God’s purposes and methods are obviously NOT clear since your own interpretation of them leads you to ridicule him as messy and inefficient, whereas I have offered alternative interpretations which allow him to appear perfectly efficient in achieving different purposes from yours, or even the same one.

DAVID: My God produced us by His evolutionary method. He did not enjoy a free-for-all or have to experiment to achieve the goal like you unrecognizable guy.

Although you accept that all my (and your own) alternative theories relating to your God’s purposes, methods and nature are possible, they are impossible for you because they are different from your own fixed wishes and beliefs, including your astonishing conclusion that your perfect God is a messy and inefficient designer.

LUCA

DAVID: Your refusal to look at the biochemistry of life as a continuum from its beginning is wrong. You look at phenotypical evolution at the simplistic Darwin level. form is not function. Once life is formed, it can have any shape God desires. Thus the Cambrian appears with no form predecessors but with all the necessary life mechanisms in place. The literature is filled with de novo gaps like the Cambrian but of smaller degree.

dhw: Of course LUCA must be the original cells from which all life forms have evolved in a continuous process – but the process has been one of diversification! The exact opposite of your theory that the process was meant to head solely towards one species plus its food! It is you who focus on speciation and not on biochemistry, and so it makes no sense to claim that we were its sole purpose! That is why you are at a total loss to explain why your God didn’t create our species directly instead of creating and having to cull 100 out of 100 irrelevant pre-Cambrians, and 99 out of 100 post-Cambrians.

DAVID: You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.

You accuse me of ignoring the biochemistry. I give you a complete response, and so you ignore it and change the subject back to one that has already been demolished time after time: current numbers are descended from the 0.1% survivors out of the 100% that ever existed, 99.9% of which were irrelevant to us and our food. Even the fact that we use whatever resources are here does mean that we would die without them. Many are useful, but not necessary. Now please explain why your perfect God had to create and cull 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. If you can’t, then please say so and stop changing the subject.

What does the universe expand into?

DAVID: so we are left with the concept that the universe expands into itself. There is nothing out there to expand into. Wow! In creating the universe God has left us with puzzles. Not just that the basis of our universe is quantum mechanics.

If 95% (approx.) of the universe consists of dark matter, and 68% of dark energy – i.e. matter and energy we know nothing about – how do we know WHAT is the basis of our universe? An atheist would argue that in creating God, humans have left us with even more puzzles than a godless universe. We agnostics simply confess that we are puzzled, though that needn’t stop us from looking for clues. Hence this website!

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.

DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.

dhw: Now please explain why cells that follow your omniscient, omnipotent God’s instructions sometimes fail to survive.

Life is not perfect as produced by God. Death is an expected outcome. No one lives forever.

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID: God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.

dhw: God’s purposes and methods are obviously NOT clear since your own interpretation of them leads you to ridicule him as messy and inefficient, whereas I have offered alternative interpretations which allow him to appear perfectly efficient in achieving different purposes from yours, or even the same one.

My God produced us by His evolutionary method. He did not enjoy a free-for-all or have to experiment to achieve the goal like you unrecognizable guy.

LUCA

DAVID: {...] My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.

dhw: As before, the complexity provides good grounds for your belief in a God who did the original engineering. Your belief in his “de novo” engineering of our Cambrian ancestors has led you to one of many contradictions in your refusal to accept that this makes all pre-Cambrian species irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on your God (in those times when your God has a reason for creating life). And our disagreements concern what happened AFTER life appeared.

DAVID: Your refusal to look at the biochemistry of life as a continuum from its beginning is wrong. You look at phenotypical evolution at the simplistic Darwin level. form is not function. Once life is formed, it can have any shape God desires. Thus the Cambrian appears with no form predecessors but with all the necessary life mechanisms in place. The literature is filled with de novo gaps like the Cambrian but of smaller degree.

dhw: Of course LUCA must be the original cells from which all life forms have evolved in a continuous process – but the process has been one of diversification! The exact opposite of your theory that the process was meant to head solely towards one species plus its food! It is you who focus on speciation and not on biochemistry, and so it makes no sense to claim that we were its sole purpose! That is why you are at a total loss to explain why your God didn’t create our species directly instead of creating and having to cull 100 out of 100 irrelevant pre-Cambrians, and 99 out of 100 post-Cambrians.

You still skip over what evolution produced: us a huge numbers and all the living resources on Earth for our use. Yes God culled, as a normal part of any evolution, but what is here is all necessary to be here for us.

DAVID: You don't understand what I wrote. Cell apoptosis is built into life. When a cell is no longer useful, it is killed. All lives have an end point.

I am not questioning what happens! I am questioning your interpretation of what happens. You are dodging the whole question of what you call your God’s “instructions” in connection with cellular responses to threats from outside. Herewith the exchange that started this discussion:

DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.

dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.

DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.

Now please explain why cells that follow your omniscient, omnipotent God’s instructions sometimes fail to survive.

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID: I'm on my own journey with God, not asking for help beyond what Adler has published to guide me. The biochemistry of life requires a 'sourceless' mind.

dhw: I am not disputing the latter as evidence of design. The dispute is over your God’s purposes, methods and nature, and you have made it plain on the “evolution” thread that you have fixed wishes and beliefs, and although you acknowledge that they are”schizophrenic”, part of your schizophrenia is to claim that you never contradict yourself.

DAVID: God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.

God’s purposes and methods are obviously NOT clear since your own interpretation of them leads you to ridicule him as messy and inefficient, whereas I have offered alternative interpretations which allow him to appear perfectly efficient in achieving different purposes from yours, or even the same one.

LUCA

DAVID: {...] My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.

dhw: As before, the complexity provides good grounds for your belief in a God who did the original engineering. Your belief in his “de novo” engineering of our Cambrian ancestors has led you to one of many contradictions in your refusal to accept that this makes all pre-Cambrian species irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on your God (in those times when your God has a reason for creating life). And our disagreements concern what happened AFTER life appeared.

DAVID: Your refusal to look at the biochemistry of life as a continuum from its beginning is wrong. You look at phenotypical evolution at the simplistic Darwin level. form is not function. Once life is formed, it can have any shape God desires. Thus the Cambrian appears with no form predecessors but with all the necessary life mechanisms in place. The literature is filled with de novo gaps like the Cambrian but of smaller degree.

Of course LUCA must be the original cells from which all life forms have evolved in a continuous process – but the process has been one of diversification! The exact opposite of your theory that the process was meant to head solely towards one species plus its food! It is you who focus on speciation and not on biochemistry, and so it makes no sense to claim that we were its sole purpose! That is why you are at a total loss to explain why your God didn’t create our species directly instead of creating and having to cull 100 out of 100 irrelevant pre-Cambrians, and 99 out of 100 post-Cambrians.

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

DAVID: Do you imagine a life with no deaths? Insane. Death is a built in part of life.

dhw: I am not questioning the reality of life! I am questioning your interpretation of cellular behaviour! If an omniscient, omnipotent God issued instructions for survival, how come his instructions so often fail? Did he also issue instructions for death? Or is it possible that he gave cells autonomy, and sometimes they succeed in coping with new threats but sometimes they don’t?

You don't understand what I wrote. Cell apoptosis is built into life. When a cell is no longer useful, it is killed. All lives have an end point.

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID: I'm on my own journey with God, not asking for help beyond what Adler has published to guide me. The biochemistry of life requires a 'sourceless' mind.

dhw: I am not disputing the latter as evidence of design. The dispute is over your God’s purposes, methods and nature, and you have made it plain on the “evolution” thread that you have fixed wishes and beliefs, and although you acknowledge that they are”schizophrenic”, part of your schizophrenia is to claim that you never contradict yourself.

God's purposes and method are quite clear to produce us. It is His nature where there must be great debates.

LUCA

QUOTES: The result is a picture of a cellular organism that was prokaryote grade rather than progenotic and that probably existed as a component of an ecosystem,”

"This basically means it’s more complex than they thought".

"this study means that either life can form much easier and faster than we thought, or it was seeded by some sample from outer space.

DAVID: {...] My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.

dhw: As before, the complexity provides good grounds for your belief in a God who did the original engineering. Your belief in his “de novo” engineering of our Cambrian ancestors has led you to one of many contradictions in your refusal to accept that this makes all pre-Cambrian species irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on your God (in those times when your God has a reason for creating life). And our disagreements concern what happened AFTER life appeared.

Your refusal to look at the biochemistry of life as a continuum from its beginning is wrong. You look at phenotypical evolution at the simplistic Darwin level. form is not function. Once life is formed, it can have any shape God desires. Thus the Cambrian appears with no form predecessors but with all the necessary life mechanisms in place. The literature is filled with de novo gaps like the Cambrian but of smaller degree.

dhw: I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?

DAVID: Cellular apoptosis is built into life. Remember?

dhw: So has your God given instructions for precisely which cells should live and which should die when new conditions threaten the immune system? And if his instructions fail, and new threats kill instead of being killed, what does that tell us about his instructions?

DAVID: Do you imagine a life with no deaths? Insane. Death is a built in part of life.

I am not questioning the reality of life! I am questioning your interpretation of cellular behaviour! If an omniscient, omnipotent God issued instructions for survival, how come his instructions so often fail? Did he also issue instructions for death? Or is it possible that he gave cells autonomy, and sometimes they succeed in coping with new threats but sometimes they don’t?

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID[…] dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.

dhw: You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” I shan’t repeat all the absurdities and contradictiona which are dealt with on the evolution thread and for which you try to blame me!

DAVID: I did what you have not done, studied the biochemical basis of life. That is the true start which convinced me life is designed by a superior mind. […] Then I start to imagine the personage exists with that mind and what's in it for Him, if anything. I admit some of my guesses are wishful thinking.

dhw: What’s “in it for Him” has led you schizophrenically to propose all the humanizing thought patterns and emotions you regard as possible but reject as impossible. (See the evolution thread.)

DAVID: I'm on my own journey with God, not asking for help beyond what Adler has published to guide me. The biochemistry of life requires a 'sourceless' mind.

I am not disputing the latter as evidence of design. The dispute is over your God’s purposes, methods and nature, and you have made it plain on the “evolution” thread that you have fixed wishes and beliefs, and although you acknowledge that they are”schizophrenic”, part of your schizophrenia is to claim that you never contradict yourself.

LUCA

QUOTES: The result is a picture of a cellular organism that was prokaryote grade rather than progenotic and that probably existed as a component of an ecosystem,”

"This basically means it’s more complex than they thought".

"this study means that either life can form much easier and faster than we thought, or it was seeded by some sample from outer space.

DAVID: {...] My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.

As before, the complexity provides good grounds for your belief in a God who did the original engineering. Your belief in his “de novo” engineering of our Cambrian ancestors has led you to one of many contradictions in your refusal to accept that this makes all pre-Cambrian species irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on your God (in those times when your God has a reason for creating life). And our disagreements concern what happened AFTER life appeared.

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

dhw: I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?

DAVID: Cellular apoptosis is built into life. Remember?

dhw: So has your God given instructions for precisely which cells should live and which should die when new conditions threaten the immune system? And if his instructions fail, and new threats kill instead of being killed, what does that tell us about his instructions?

Do you imagine a life with no deaths? Insane. Death is a built in part of life.

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID[…] dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.

dhw: You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

I shan’t repeat all the absurdities and contradictiona which are dealt with on the evolution thread and for which you try to blame me!

DAVID: I did what you have not done, studied the biochemical basis of life. That is the true start which convinced me life is designed by a superior mind.

dhw: It has been clear to me since I first switched from atheism to agnosticism that the complexities of living things are a powerful argument for the existence of God. Our discussions about a possible God’s purpose, methods and nature have never been about his existence, but I refuse to ignore those inexplicable factors which throw doubt on his existence. The sheer size, composition and history of the universe, and the very concept of an immaterial, sourceless form of conscious mind are among those factors.

DAVID: Then I start to imagine the personage exists with that mind and what's in it for
Him, if anything. I admit some of my guesses are wishful thinking.

dhw: What’s “in it for Him” has led you schizophrenically to propose all the humanizing thought patterns and emotions you regard as possible but reject as impossible. (See the evolution thread.)

I'm on my own journey with God, not asking for help beyond what Adler has published to guide me. The biochemistry of life requires a 'sourceless' mind.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/new-study-of-117456284/early-access?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI...

"If you trace back your genetic family line a few billion years, it doesn’t only join with mine, it joins with those of all known animals, and plants, and bacteria, to one organism: LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Scientists believe that every living thing on Earth descends from LUCA, it’s just taken us about four billion years to learn speaking English.

"But a recent study delivered quite a surprise. It’s found that LUCA was much more complex than previously thought, and that raises a lot of questions about the origin of life.

"LUCA is a hypothesis, but a well motivated one. It’s based on the observation that all living beings on earth are built up in similar ways. They all have similar molecular and cellular features, such as the genetic code, ribosomes, and metabolic pathways like the way we generate energy from sugar. And to the extent that we can test this with fossils, it’s also the case well back in time.

"Scientists think that LUCA was not the origin of life itself. There were likely simpler self-reproducing structures before that, though it somewhat depends on what you mean by “life”. If life means arguing about the Oxford Comma, I don’t think LUCA was quite there yet. But just exactly what sort of organism LUCA was, no one really knew. This is where the new study comes in.

"These researchers did a sophisticated genomic analysis of pretty much everything they could get their hands on to identify the genes which all known organisms have in common and which therefore likely originated in LUCA. They found a whopping 2,657 of them, much more than any previous study.

"And we mostly know what these genes are good for, because we know what proteins they synthesize. The genes seem to indicate that LUCA was good at using hydrogen gas as an energy source. This is very interesting because it tells us something about the environment in which LUCA must have lived. (my bold)

***

"That part had it that when LUCA lived, about 4 point 2 billion years ago, organism were incredibly basic.

"But this is not what the new study found. Even though this study might have missed some genes, it gives us a minimal set of what LUCA must have contained.

"They estimate Luca’s genome size to be about 2 point 75 million base pairs of DNA. Just for comparison, human DNA has a little over 3 billion base pairs and onions about 13 billion.

***

"They write in the paper “The result is a picture of a cellular organism that was prokaryote grade rather than progenotic and that probably existed as a component of an ecosystem,”

"This basically means it’s more complex than they thought. Prokaryotes are organisms that still live today, for example many types of bacteria like E coli. They are typically 1 to 10 micrometres in size and have a cell wall but no nucleus that holds the DNA. Instead, the DNA floats freely on the inside.

"The reason this is relevant is that we know roughly when LUCA existed and there wasn’t a lot of time for it to grow to that complexity because just half a billion years earlier, Earth was quite literally a hot mess. So this study means that either life can form much easier and faster than we thought, or it was seeded by some sample from outer space. (my bold)

Comment: note my bolds. My view is that life appeared as engineered by God, just like the Cambrian animals did later on. It only took half a billion years to appear once the earliest Earth had formed.

dhw: Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.
And:
DAVID: The cells are built to die at some point. All life ends up dead. Not God's fault.

dhw: I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?

DAVID: Cellular apoptosis is built into life. Remember?

So has your God given instructions for precisely which cells should live and which should die when new conditions threaten the immune system? And if his instructions fail, and new threats kill instead of being killed, what does that tell us about his instructions?

Keeping the brain clean

dhw: I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design [...]. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.

DAVID: A designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence.

dhw: And there was me thinking you thought God had designed our intelligence to be autonomous, in the form of free will. And you even have viruses mutating on their own, independently of any divine instructions.

DAVID: Flu virus, yes, and amazingly, our free will thought.

So when you say that “a designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence”, you should add “unless it is an autonomous intelligence”. That may include cells.

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID[…] dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.

dhw: You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

I shan’t repeat all the absurdities and contradictiona which are dealt with on the evolution thread and for which you try to blame me!

DAVID: I did what you have not done, studied the biochemical basis of life. That is the true start which convinced me life is designed by a superior mind.

It has been clear to me since I first switched from atheism to agnosticism that the complexities of living things are a powerful argument for the existence of God. Our discussions about a possible God’s purpose, methods and nature have never been about his existence, but I refuse to ignore those inexplicable factors which throw doubt on his existence. The sheer size, composition and history of the universe, and the very concept of an immaterial, sourceless form of conscious mind are among those factors.

DAVID: Then I start to imagine the personage exists with that mind and what's in it for
Him, if anything. I admit some of my guesses are wishful thinking.

What’s “in it for Him” has led you schizophrenically to propose all the humanizing thought patterns and emotions you regard as possible but reject as impossible. (See the evolution thread.)

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

DAVID: The cells are built to die at some point. All life ends up dead. Not God's fault.

dhw: I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?

Cellular apoptosis is built into life. Remember?

Keeping the brain clean

dhw: I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design, as I’ve said in the parenthesis. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.

DAVID: A designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence.

dhw: And there was me thinking you thought God had designed our intelligence to be autonomous, in the form of free will. And you even have viruses mutating on their own, independently of any divine instructions.

Flu virus, yes, and amazingly, our free will thought.

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID: the Chixculub asteroid demonstrated how dangerous they are. If we are on our way to 90% detection, we are in good shape to protect ourselves. dhw will ask why God allowed this menace. The answer is our planet came from accretion of many planetoid bodies like the asteroids. Earth would not exist without them. Then dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.

dhw: You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” It all starts earlier than that. Your first wish is that your God should exist. Therefore any argument against the existence of God is wrong. You wish your God to be omnipotent and omniscient and to have just one purpose for creating life (us), therefore the sheer enormity of the universe and apparent haphazardness of heavenly bodies and earthly species that come and go must be some unknowable, inexplicable part of his plan to create us. You wish your God was benevolent and all-good, and so we should ignore the problem of evil. But your other self tells you that nobody can actually know any of this, and so in one of your more lucid moments you confess that your beliefs are schizophrenic, but even then you can’t see all the contradictions I have listed elsewhere. Dhw is to blame for all them! No, dhw doesn’t even know whether God exists, but if God does exist, dhw tries to understand the logic behind your theories, but how can he when you yourself can’t find any logic in them? They simply express your wishes.

I did what you have not done, studied the biochemical basis of life. That is the true start which convinced me life is designed by a superior mind. Then I start to imagine the personage exists with that mind and what's in it for Him, if anything. I admit some of my guesses are wishful thinking.

dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.

dhw: So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.

DAVID: No you don't. People die. Does that make God inadequate? I doubt it.

dhw: Your God has given the cells instructions on how to alter themselves when required to do so; they obey his instructions, but sometimes they fail to alter themselves when required to do so, suffer the consequences, and often die. How does that come to mean that your God’s instructions are adequate? Would it not make more sense if the cells themselves were responsible for their success or failure?

DAVID: The cells are built to die at some point. All life ends up dead. Not God's fault.

I’d rather not talk of faults here, as we are discussing cellular intelligence, not theodicy. So now what are you saying? Your God gives cells instructions on how to survive new circumstances, but he also gives them instructions NOT to survive?

Keeping the brain clean

QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain

DAVID: Cell's only intelligence is from God's designs.

dhw: I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design, as I’ve said in the parenthesis. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.

DAVID: A designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence.

And there was me thinking you thought God had designed our intelligence to be autonomous, in the form of free will. And you even have viruses mutating on their own, independently of any divine instructions.

Fighting off asteroid hits

DAVID: the Chixculub asteroid demonstrated how dangerous they are. If we are on our way to 90% detection, we are in good shape to protect ourselves. dhw will ask why God allowed this menace. The answer is our planet came from accretion of many planetoid bodies like the asteroids. Earth would not exist without them. Then dhw will ask why God did not do it differently for safety. Perhaps by some other method. The possibility is there is no other method, but dhw continuously knows better than God.

You ask all the right questions, and your answers vividly illustrate the confession you made a little while ago: “I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” It all starts earlier than that. Your first wish is that your God should exist. Therefore any argument against the existence of God is wrong. You wish your God to be omnipotent and omniscient and to have just one purpose for creating life (us), therefore the sheer enormity of the universe and apparent haphazardness of heavenly bodies and earthly species that come and go must be some unknowable, inexplicable part of his plan to create us. You wish your God was benevolent and all-good, and so we should ignore the problem of evil. But your other self tells you that nobody can actually know any of this, and so in one of your more lucid moments you confess that your beliefs are schizophrenic, but even then you can’t see all the contradictions I have listed elsewhere. Dhw is to blame for all them! No, dhw doesn’t even know whether God exists, but if God does exist, dhw tries to understand the logic behind your theories, but how can he when you yourself can’t find any logic in them? They simply express your wishes.

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

dhw: I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.

DAVID: […] renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require […]

dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.

dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?

DAVID: No.

dhw: So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.

DAVID: No you don't. People die. Does that make God inadequate? I doubt it.

dhw: Your God has given the cells instructions on how to alter themselves when required to do so; they obey his instructions, but sometimes they fail to alter themselves when required to do so, suffer the consequences, and often die. How does that come to mean that your God’s instructions are adequate? Would it not make more sense if the cells themselves were responsible for their success or failure?

The cells are built to die at some point. All life ends up dead. Not God's fault.

Keeping the brain clean

QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain function.'"

DAVID: this adds a whole new approach to protecting the brain. This is certainly a model for design.

dhw: Yet another sensational new discovery. I love the emphasis on molecular cooperation which figures so regularly in these articles, as does the fact that so much research is done on mice, which evolved millions and millions of years before we did. Our brains may be unique in their complexity, but clearly they are the product of evolutionary development. Design? Yes indeed. But what conducts the “symphony”? Back we go to our theories: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine dabbles or 3.8 billion-years-old instructions, or Shapiro’s intelligent cells (possibly designed by David’s God)?

DAVID: Cell's only intelligence is from God's designs.

dhw: I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design, as I’ve said in the parenthesis. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.

A designed intelligence is no autonomous intelligence.

dhw: I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.

DAVID: […] renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require […]

dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.

dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?

DAVID: No.

dhw: So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.

DAVID: No you don't. People die. Does that make God inadequate? I doubt it.

Your God has given the cells instructions on how to alter themselves when required to do so; they obey his instructions, but sometimes they fail to alter themselves when required to do so, suffer the consequences, and often die. How does that come to mean that your God’s instructions are adequate? Would it not make more sense if the cells themselves were responsible for their success or failure?

Keeping the brain clean

QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain function.'"

DAVID: this adds a whole new approach to protecting the brain. This is certainly a model for design.

dhw: Yet another sensational new discovery. I love the emphasis on molecular cooperation which figures so regularly in these articles, as does the fact that so much research is done on mice, which evolved millions and millions of years before we did. Our brains may be unique in their complexity, but clearly they are the product of evolutionary development. Design? Yes indeed. But what conducts the “symphony”? Back we go to our theories: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine dabbles or 3.8 billion-years-old instructions, or Shapiro’s intelligent cells (possibly designed by David’s God)?

DAVID: Cell's only intelligence is from God's designs.

I have no difficulty accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence is God’s design, as I’ve said in the parenthesis. It’s nice to see that you are no longer rejecting the theory. At least for today.

Theoretical origin of life

QUOTE: "Our new research adds to a small but growing body of evidence that ancient versions of these hot springs could have played a pivotal role in the emergence of life on Earth. This helps bridge the gap between competing hypotheses regarding where life could have emerged.”

dhw: I think the emphasis here should be on “could have played” and “where life could have emerged”. This tells us nothing about the mystery of HOW life emerged. We know that certain ingredients were necessary, and we know where these ingredients may be found, but we are not even one tiny step closer to discovering how all the ingredients were assembled and transformed from the inanimate to the animate.

DAVID: Bravo!!!

Thank you. Perhaps you will eventually realize that I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

dhw: I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.

DAVID: […] renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require […]

dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.

dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?

DAVID: No.

dhw: So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.

No you don't. People die. Does that make God inadequate? I doubt it .

Keeping the brain clean

QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain function.'"

DAVID: this adds a whole new approach to protecting the brain. This is certainly a model for design.

dhw: Yet another sensational new discovery. I love the emphasis on molecular cooperation which figures so regularly in these articles, as does the fact that so much research is done on mice, which evolved millions and millions of years before we did. Our brains may be unique in their complexity, but clearly they are the product of evolutionary development. Design? Yes indeed. But what conducts the “symphony”? Back we go to our theories: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine dabbles or 3.8 billion-years-old instructions, or Shapiro’s intelligent cells (possibly designed by David’s God)?

Cell's only intelligence is from God's designs.

Theoretical origin of life

QUOTE: "Our new research adds to a small but growing body of evidence that ancient versions of these hot springs could have played a pivotal role in the emergence of life on Earth. This helps bridge the gap between competing hypotheses regarding where life could have emerged.”

dhw: I think the emphasis here should be on “could have played” and “where life could have emerged”. This tells us nothing about the mystery of HOW life emerged. We know that certain ingredients were necessary, and we know where these ingredients may be found, but we are not even one tiny step closer to discovering how all the ingredients were assembled and transformed from the inanimate to the animate.

Bravo!!!

dhw: I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.

DAVID: […] renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require […]

dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.

dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?

DAVID: No.

So when people die from renal or liver failure, it’s because your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s instructions are inadequate. All part of his general inefficiency. I get it.

Keeping the brain clean

QUOTE: "It's beautiful to imagine that changing metabolism results in this symphony of molecules cooperating together to improve brain function.'"

DAVID: this adds a whole new approach to protecting the brain. This is certainly a model for design.

Yet another sensational new discovery. I love the emphasis on molecular cooperation which figures so regularly in these articles, as does the fact that so much research is done on mice, which evolved millions and millions of years before we did. Our brains may be unique in their complexity, but clearly they are the product of evolutionary development. Design? Yes indeed. But what conducts the “symphony”? Back we go to our theories: Darwin’s random mutations, David’s divine dabbles or 3.8 billion-years-old instructions, or Shapiro’s intelligent cells (possibly designed by David’s God)?

Theoretical origin of life

QUOTE: "Our new research adds to a small but growing body of evidence that ancient versions of these hot springs could have played a pivotal role in the emergence of life on Earth. This helps bridge the gap between competing hypotheses regarding where life could have emerged.”

I think the emphasis here should be on “could have played” and “where life could have emerged”. This tells us nothing about the mystery of HOW life emerged. We know that certain ingredients were necessary, and we know where these ingredients may be found, but we are not even one tiny step closer to discovering how all the ingredients were assembled and transformed from the inanimate to the animate.

Negative theology

I'm afraid some of this goes over the same ground as the "evolution" thread, but perhaps the repetition will make the arguments clearer.

DAVID: Natural evolution could not have produced us. We are designed to be here.

dhw: According to you, every life form was designed to be here, although 99% of them had no connection with us. Why else would you label your God’s use of evolution as inefficient?

DAVID: Wrong! All of evolution was required as you twist Raup's statements. All the 0.1% surviving required the 99.9% extinct to get here.

dhw: We needn’t go back over your ridiculous distortion of Raup, which argued that the 0.1% were the children of the 99.9%. It is you who insist that your God designed every species and then had to cull 99.9 % of them because they had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. That is why you ridicule him as being “inefficient”.

The point we can't answer is why God used evolution to create us. Direct creation is much neater.

dhw: […] Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations(positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.

DAVID: God's selflessness means He expects no self-interest gains from His creations.

dhw: I know what “selflessness” means. I don’t know how you can apply the term to a God who you think enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and may have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him.

DAVID: My wishes for a God relationship does not mean God wishes as I do.

dhw: The desire for a relationship, recognition and worship was one of the reasons you gave for God specially creating humans. Of course we don’t know God’s wishes, and can only theorize, but you don’t have to pretend that your theoretical answers are not your theoretical answers.

DAVID: A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.

dhw: So please once and for all tell us why you think he created life in general and us in particular.

DAVID: It is obvious, I have no way of knowing.

dhw: Nobody has. And you have no way of knowing his purpose, but you insist that you do. And there must be a reason or purpose for his wanting to create us, and you have kindly offered us a whole list of (very feasible) possibilities, which you now attribute to me and would like to reject while agreeing that they are all possible!

As above, the point here is humans appeared unreasonably by natural means. Assuming God in control, we are His favorite goal, to make any sense of our appearance.

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.

DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.

dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.

dhw: Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?

No.

Stoicism

DAVID: 'You sound like a virtuous guy. I think I am also.

dhw: I have no doubt that you are, and I can assure you that I also do my very best to stick to the principles I listed. They do not require the support of religion, and you may be surprised to know that I have agnostic and atheist friends who are also very decent people.

DAVID: I would think so.

dhw: So now you know. It is perfectly possible to be stoical and virtuous without the support of religion, which was our starting point.

Agreed.

I'm afraid some of this goes over the same ground as the "evolution" thread, but perhaps the repetition will make the arguments clearer.

DAVID: Natural evolution could not have produced us. We are designed to be here.

dhw: According to you, every life form was designed to be here, although 99% of them had no connection with us. Why else would you label your God’s use of evolution as inefficient?

DAVID: Wrong! All of evolution was required as you twist Raup's statements. All the 0.1% surviving required the 99.9% extinct to get here.

We needn’t go back over your ridiculous distortion of Raup, which argued that the 0.1% were the children of the 99.9%. It is you who insist that your God designed every species and then had to cull 99.9 % of them because they had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. That is why you ridicule him as being “inefficient”.

dhw: […] Looking at your list, I’d say that we can be certain that IF God exists, he is not a human being. (Negative.) I would say that if his motive for creating us was to be recognized and worshipped, or he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations(positive), that is feasible, but then it is not feasible to say he’s selfless.

DAVID: God's selflessness means He expects no self-interest gains from His creations.

dhw: I know what “selflessness” means. I don’t know how you can apply the term to a God who you think enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and may have created us because he wanted us to recognize and worship him.

DAVID: My wishes for a God relationship does not mean God wishes as I do.

The desire for a relationship, recognition and worship was one of the reasons you gave for God specially creating humans. Of course we don’t know God’s wishes, and can only theorize, but you don’t have to pretend that your theoretical answers are not your theoretical answers.

DAVID: A God who creates without self-interest is perfectly feasible.

dhw: So please once and for all tell us why you think he created life in general and us in particular.

DAVID: It is obvious, I have no way of knowing.

Nobody has. And you have no way of knowing his purpose, but you insist that you do. And there must be a reason or purpose for his wanting to create us, and you have kindly offered us a whole list of (very feasible) possibilities, which you now attribute to me and would like to reject while agreeing that they are all possible!

Cellular intelligence: renal cell memory

dhw: [..] I would suggest that cell behaviour only looks automatic when cells are performing their routine duties. Intelligence comes into play when something new is required.

DAVID: As I've noted renal cells and liver cells must be able to alter their routines as circumstances require to maintain the proper balances.

dhw: Thank you for repeating the point I have just made. They have the ability to change when required. That requires intelligence.

DAVID: Or following intelligent instructions.

dhw: If they are able to alter their routines as circumstances require, it means they have the ability to do so. Having an ability does not mean having to follow instructions.

DAVID: Yes it does if they use instructions to alter their actions.

Interesting argument. Then let’s try a different approach. Do they have the ability to disobey your God's instructions?

Stoicism

DAVID: without the support of religion what do you do? This interview tells us face life with a stiff upper lip. DHW should tell us how he does it.

dhw: I gave you a full answer to your personal question, in the hope that you would understand why religion is NOT fundamental to stoicism or to virtue.

DAVID: 'You sound like a virtuous guy. I think I am also.

dhw: I have no doubt that you are, and I can assure you that I also do my very best to stick to the principles I listed. They do not require the support of religion, and you may be surprised to know that I have agnostic and atheist friends who are also very decent people.

DAVID: I would think so.

So now you know. It is perfectly possible to be stoical and virtuous without the support of religion, which was our starting point.