dhw: But you are offering me a choice of evolution with limitations versus evolution without limitations, as above, and one makes sense to you while the other doesn’t.

On the contrary I can accept either, as I have said all along.

DAVID: If He controls or guides evolution there is no chance.

dhw: Precisely. So why do you say he waited until our solar system “appeared”? Your answer is your second hypothesis: that he may have designed all the systems with a view to creating lots of life forms. So then you will have to jettison your “waited until our solar system appeared”. More confusion.

No confusion. He may be in total control and only look limited.

DAVID: Multiple worlds with multiple humans is something we cannot know, but also something to be considered.

dhw: Agreed. And either he is in control or he isn’t. That is “something we cannot know”, as is the history of life’s evolution, and the existence of God, and God’s purposes and nature. But oddball theist and pure agnostic, we are united in our quest for enlightenment, and long may we continue to jostle along with each other!

DAVID: Right on!

dhw: Agreement at last!

To continue the battle.

DAVID: He always has the ability if it is His choice.
That is choice (b).

DAVID: Whether He has limits is possible, but like the entire discussion, we don't know.
That is choice (a) again.

dhw:… and enter confusion: if he CAN do it, why DOESN’T he do it? (Possible answer: because he wants the ever changing spectacle, and maybe humans are just an afterthought. Can you think of another answer?)
DAVID: All you are describing is your own convoluted confusion. Simply accept the fact that He chooses evolution as his process without limitations. He has the right to any choices He chooses.

But you are offering me a choice of evolution with limitations versus evolution without limitations, as above, and one makes sense to you while the other doesn’t.

DAVID: Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.
dhw: Which makes him just as reliant on chance as our atheist friends. You realized that, of course, and came up with your afterthought, in which – also in company with our atheist friends – you have lots of other living worlds.
DAVID: If He controls or guides evolution there is no chance.

Precisely. So why do you say he waited until our solar system “appeared”? Your answer is your second hypothesis: that he may have designed all the systems with a view to creating lots of life forms. So then you will have to jettison your “waited until our solar system appeared”. More confusion.

DAVID: Multiple worlds with multiple humans is something we cannot know, but also something to be considered.
dhw: Agreed. And either he is in control or he isn’t. That is “something we cannot know”, as is the history of life’s evolution, and the existence of God, and God’s purposes and nature. But oddball theist and pure agnostic, we are united in our quest for enlightenment, and long may we continue to jostle along with each other!
DAVID: Right on!

Agreement at last!

DAVID: Your questions have helped my take my thoughts beyond the observation that God uses evolutionary methods, which is obvious from the history we see. If He is all-powerful then He shouldn't have to use evolutionary processes. So perhaps it is a choice, not a necessity.

dhw:So either a) he has the power and knowledge to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, but has to wait 3.X billion years until he is able to dabble the one thing he really wants: the pre-human brain (but you discount him experimenting – he just knows he can’t do it until he can do it); or b) he chooses to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder because he wants to, and not because he can’t yet dabble the human brain.

That is the most garbled interpretation of my thoughts I've seen. All I've noted is above. It is possible He chooses to use evolution for all creations, and then waits until what He expects to develop appears. None pf your convolutions.

Exit the “balance of nature” argument (to keep life going until he somehow acquires the ability he needs),

The balance of nature never exits. He always has the ability if it is His choice. Whether He has limits is possible, but like the entire discussion, we don't know.

dhw: and enter confusion: if he CAN do it, why DOESN’T he do it? (Possible answer: because he wants the ever changing spectacle, and maybe humans are just an afterthought. Can you think of another answer?)

All you are describing is your own convoluted confusion. Simply accept the fact that He chooses evolution as his process without limitations. He has the right to any choices He chooses. Why complain, we humans are here?

DAVID: Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.

dhw: Which makes him just as reliant on chance as our atheist friends. You realized that, of course, and came up with your afterthought, in which – also in company with our atheist friends – you have lots of other living worlds.

If He controls or guides evolution there is no chance. Multiple worlds with multiple humans is something we cannot know, but also something to be considered.

dhw: But oddball theist and pure agnostic, we are united in our quest for enlightenment, and long may we continue to jostle along with each other!

Right on!

It is your thoughts about his purpose that create all the anomalies in your arguments, as below.

DAVID: Your questions have helped my take my thoughts beyond the observation that God uses evolutionary methods, which is obvious from the history we see. If He is all-powerful then He shouldn't have to use evolutionary processes. So perhaps it is a choice, not a necessity.

So either a) he has the power and knowledge to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, but has to wait 3.X billion years until he is able to dabble the one thing he really wants: the pre-human brain (but you discount him experimenting – he just knows he can’t do it until he can do it); or b) he chooses to design every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder because he wants to, and not because he can’t yet dabble the human brain. Exit the “balance of nature” argument (to keep life going until he somehow acquires the ability he needs), and enter confusion: if he CAN do it, why DOESN’T he do it? (Possible answer: because he wants the ever changing spectacle, and maybe humans are just an afterthought. Can you think of another answer?)

DAVID: Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.

Which makes him just as reliant on chance as our atheist friends. You realized that, of course, and came up with your afterthought, in which – also in company with our atheist friends – you have lots of other living worlds. I’m not against the hypothesis. It simply illustrates the general confusion.

dhw: NB If most theists disagree with your hypothesis, you can hardly use my agnosticism as an argument against my own.
DAVID: Most theists follow the Bible. I am a theist like no other theist. And you are a pure agnostic like few others.

You are indeed out on your own with your brand of theism, which makes it all the more absurd that you should denigrate my hypotheses on the grounds that I am an agnostic. But oddball theist and pure agnostic, we are united in our quest for enlightenment, and long may we continue to jostle along with each other!

dhw:I didn’t know your theory was that solar systems came and went of their own accord until ours “appeared”. I thought you thought your God specifically designed ours, and I wonder why he (had to) set up a system in which solar systems autonomously created and destroyed themselves for the sake of producing humans.

David: Your questions have helped my take my thoughts beyond the observation that God uses evolutionary methods, which is obvious from the history we see. If He is all-powerful then He shouldn't have to use evolutionary processes. So perhaps it is a choice, not a necessity. Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.

Afterthought: our universe is about 8.78 billion years old. In that period of time there could have been another galaxy that had an Earth and life. Whether it still exists we'll never know, because of the astronomical light-year distances between galaxies other then our neighborhood group. Andromeda, the closest big galaxy is over 2.5 million light years away. The closest Dwarf at 70,000 light years away is the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy. The only evidence for life outside of Earth for us to have contact is within a close part of this galaxy, since the Milky Way is itself 100,000 light years across.

But what these facts bring up is the possibility that God has had an opportunity to develop life with this galaxy in another ideal solar system with an Earth or a series of other solar system we can never contact. Considering how quickly life appeared on Earth after it formed, there literally could be many solar systems with life, possibly with folks like us discussing the mysteries of existence. Some been and gone long before us. God could be a very busy fellow comparing the different results with Earch type of human race produced. Perhaps the galaxy is made so big so we don't ever find out about the others. A sun like ours is a special type that lasts about 10 billion years. This means some life/solar systems have been and gone. Actually, this scenario is just as reasonable as thinking ours is the only life-bearing one ever. That we may not be unique does not bother me at all.

DAVID: I don't know, but if He set up an evolutionary system, He didn't ever have to experiment. Not authoritative if it follows the first premise.

dhw: I notice you have omitted to say that the purpose of all his plans and dabbles was to produce humans. I don’t know how “having to dabble” fits in with pre-planning but not with experimentation.

You know my thoughts about His purpose of humans. Why waste space? Dabbling only exists, in my mind, because I do not know how all-powerful he is. And you know that also.

DAVID: You keep repeating a wrong interpretation of my theory that He set up a continuous evolutionary process for the universe that produced solar systems on its own until ours appeared. Most theists agree with the thought that God can do anything. I'm one who is not sure of that. He obviously planned for our solar system.

dhw:I didn’t know your theory was that solar systems came and went of their own accord until ours “appeared”. I thought you thought your God specifically designed ours, and I wonder why he (had to) set up a system in which solar systems autonomously created and destroyed themselves for the sake of producing humans.

Your questions have helped my take my thoughts beyond the observation that God uses evolutionary methods, which is obvious from the history we see. If He is all-powerful then He shouldn't have to use evolutionary processes. So perhaps it is a choice, not a necessity. Either way it follows that He waited until our solar system appeared and arranged for life to appear.

dhw: NB If most theists disagree with your hypothesis, you can hardly use my agnosticism as an argument against my own.

Most theists follow the Bible. I am a theist like no other theist. And you are a pure agnostic like few others.

DAVID: God did not look at 'experimental solar systems'.
dhw: Another of your authoritative statements. How do you know?
DAVID: I don't know, but if He set up an evolutionary system, He didn't ever have to experiment. Not authoritative if it follows the first premise.

I notice you have omitted to say that the purpose of all his plans and dabbles was to produce humans. I don’t know how “having to dabble” fits in with pre-planning but not with experimentation. Anyway, what we now have is God setting up a higgledy-piggledy system of do-it-yourself solar systems in order to produce humans, but then stepping in when the right one came along. See below for further thoughts on this.

dhw: although he knew and planned everything in advance, he may have kept discovering new limits and therefore HAVING to dabble (because his powers, but not his knowledge, may be limited) – but discovering and adapting cannot be called experimenting. All these convolutions suggest to me that your God-planned-it-all-for-humans hypothesis must at least be open to question.
DAVID: We all have questions and you are just as convoluted.

That hardly resolves the above contradictions in your hypothesis.

dhw: I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, but I have every right to question your interpretation both of his methods and of his intentions when they leave such colossal gaps. I wonder how many of your fellow theists believe that God planned every solar system and every evolutionary innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, extant and extinct, in order to produce humans?
DAVID: You keep repeating a wrong interpretation of my theory that He set up a continuous evolutionary process for the universe that produced solar systems on its own until ours appeared. Most theists agree with the thought that God can do anything. I'm one who is not sure of that. He obviously planned for our solar system.

I didn’t know your theory was that solar systems came and went of their own accord until ours “appeared”. I thought you thought your God specifically designed ours, and I wonder why he (had to) set up a system in which solar systems autonomously created and destroyed themselves for the sake of producing humans. However, this – as you said before – provides a neat parallel to my own theistic hypothesis regarding life’s history: that he set up a system that produced all sorts of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders which the organisms themselves autonomously created, though most of them were then destroyed, and eventually humans “appeared”, though they may have been the result of a dabble.

NB If most theists disagree with your hypothesis, you can hardly use my agnosticism as an argument against my own.

DAVID: You are totally missing my big picture. I have presented the idea that God uses evolutionary processes. Evolutions progress under rules of development as the universe did and still does.

dhw:For those who believe in God and evolution, of course God uses evolutionary processes which develop! The dispute between us is to what extent he planned the whole course of evolution (every solar system, every organism), to what extent his powers are limited, and to what extent he deliberately allows the evolutionary processes to go their own way.

I have said it occurs to me He setup an evolutionary system with rules of development. this fits the pre=planning concept and then He could dabble if he had to.

DAVID: God did not look at 'experimental solar systems'.

dhw: Another of your authoritative statements. How do you know?

I don't know, but if He set up an evolutionary system, He didn't ever have to experiment. Not authoritative if it follows the first premise.

DAVID: Our system is extremely rare as shown by its fine tuning: […] God either stepped in and guided Earth's development or it developed under His original rules. You will see this concept parallels my pre-planning or dabbling concept in regards to evolution of living organisms. […]I look to find His methods in what we know about cosmology.

dhw: although he knew and planned everything in advance, he may have kept discovering new limits and therefore HAVING to dabble (because his powers, but not his knowledge, may be limited) – but discovering and adapting cannot be called experimenting. All these convolutions suggest to me that your God-planned-it-all-for-humans hypothesis must at least be open to question.

We all have questions and you are just as convoluted.

dhw: I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, but I have every right to question your interpretation both of his methods and of his intentions when they leave such colossal gaps. I wonder how many of your fellow theists believe that God planned every solar system and every evolutionary innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, extant and extinct, in order to produce humans?

You keep repeating a wrong interpretation of my theory that He set up a continuous evolutionary process for the universe that produced solar systems on its own until ours appeared. Most theists agree with the thought that God can do anything. I'm one who is not sure of that. He obviously planned for our solar system.

For those who believe in God and evolution, of course God uses evolutionary processes which develop! The dispute between us is to what extent he planned the whole course of evolution (every solar system, every organism), to what extent his powers are limited, and to what extent he deliberately allows the evolutionary processes to go their own way.

DAVID: God did not look at 'experimental solar systems'.

Another of your authoritative statements. How do you know?

DAVID: Our system is extremely rare as shown by its fine tuning: […] God either stepped in and guided Earth's development or it developed under His original rules. You will see this concept parallels my pre-planning or dabbling concept in regards to evolution of living organisms. […]I look to find His methods in what we know about cosmology.

I agree that there is a parallel, and we look to find your God’s methods (and intentions) in what we know about all aspects of life. You insist that he knew what he wanted (humans) and how to get it (no experimenting). I keep asking why, in that case, you think he needed to create billions of other solar systems, extant and extinct, and the weaverbird’s nest, the frog’s tongue and the monarch butterfly’s lifestyle, in order to produce humans. Your answer is the nebulous “balance of nature”, which simply means he had to keep things going until he could dabble our planet/the human brain, or his Earth-producing /brain enlargement programmes could switch themselves on. Furthermore, although he knew and planned everything in advance, he may have kept discovering new limits and therefore HAVING to dabble (because his powers, but not his knowledge, may be limited) – but discovering and adapting cannot be called experimenting. All these convolutions suggest to me that your God-planned-it-all-for-humans hypothesis must at least be open to question.

DAVID: Of course, since you don't believe in God, you have every right to question His methods.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in God, but I have every right to question your interpretation both of his methods and of his intentions when they leave such colossal gaps. I wonder how many of your fellow theists believe that God planned every solar system and every evolutionary innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder, extant and extinct, in order to produce humans?

dhw: It is the vastness and remoteness of these billions of solar systems extant and extinct that underlie my scepticism.

DAVID: Are you forgetting how special this universe has to be in fine tuning for life to appear. Therefore the universe had to be planned in a very special way to evolve to the point when the Earth formed. Solar systems came and went until the right one appeared.

dhw: And there you have the nub of this particular matter. Are you, then, saying that your God experimented with billions of wrong solar systems until he was able to create the right one

DAVID: God worked with an evolving universe. Look at the whole picture, not bits and pieces.

dhw: According to you, God made the universe to evolve so that it would produce humans. But you only look at bits and pieces in the form of those factors which we know gave rise to life and eventually to humans. So once again: please look at the whole picture and tell me why you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the production of human beings.

You are totally missing my big picture. I have presented the idea that God uses evolutionary processes. Evolutions progress under rules of development as the universe did and still does. God did not look at 'experimental solar systems'. Our system is extremely rare as shown by its fine tuning: 20 major parameters and over 100 minor ones with more being added as we discuss. When it appeared five billion years ago, God either stepped in and guided Earth's development or it developed under His original rules. You will see this concept parallels my pre-planning or dabbling concept in regards to evolution of living organisms. You are looking in wonder at the first 8.8 billion years of the universe before ours arrived to bring up those dead solar systems. It simply took that long to create ours! Of course, since you don't believe in God, you have every right to question His methods. I look to find His methods in what we know about cosmology.

Dhw (to David;) Of course I don't "KNOW" anything, and nor do you, but what other judgement can either of us use? Please explain, then, how you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the production of human beings. If you can’t do so, then you should be able to understand why I am sceptical.
Tony: It may NOT have been directly related to human creation. It may have been necessary to creating a universe in who life could exist, though. There are so many interdependant links between seemingly unrelated things that absolutely must exist for life to even be possible that it is staggering. What you are asking is akin to asking what crushing ore has to do with your brakes. Nothing at all, directly, but if it never happened, no one would able to make your brakes.

It is David who insists that his God created the universe for the sake of producing humans. I’m afraid your own response, that my long defunct solar system “may have been necessary”, is hardly an answer. Analogies with human inventions really don’t help me either. It is the vastness and remoteness of these billions of solar systems extant and extinct that underlie my scepticism.

DAVID: Are you forgetting how special this universe has to be in fine tuning for life to appear. Therefore the universe had to be planned in a very special way to evolve to the point when the Earth formed. Solar systems came and went until the right one appeared.

And there you have the nub of this particular matter. Are you, then, saying that your God experimented with billions of wrong solar systems until he was able to create the right one (though you reject experimentation on the asteroid thread)? How does that make my long-gone, far-away wrong one vital for the production of humans? The atheist can say that billions of wrong solar systems came and went until the right one came along, and what a stroke of luck for all of us. (I find both hypotheses equally incredible.)

DAVID: God worked with an evolving universe. Look at the whole picture, not bits and pieces.

According to you, God made the universe to evolve so that it would produce humans. But you only look at bits and pieces in the form of those factors which we know gave rise to life and eventually to humans. So once again: please look at the whole picture and tell me why you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the production of human beings.

David How do you KNOW it is a waste of energy. Our solar system requires a special kind of sun, not a common style star, as one example of Hugh Ross's comments, presented yesterday, about our special Earth. It is YOUR human judgment that gets in your way.[/i]

dhw: Of course I don't "KNOW" anything, and nor do you, but what other judgement can either of us use? Please explain, then, how you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the the production of human beings. If you can’t do so, then you should be able to understand why I am sceptical.

Are you forgetting how special this universe has to be in fine tuning for life to appear. Therefore the universe had to be planned in a very special way to evolve to the point when the Earth formed. Solar systems came and went until the right one appeared. God worked with an evolving universe. Look at the whole picture, not bits and pieces. You still sound like those who denigrate the funny looking human retina.

Tony: It may NOT have been directly related to human creation. It may have been necessary to creating a universe in who life could exist, though. There are so many interdependant links between seemingly unrelated things that absolutely must exist for life to even be possible that it is staggering. What you are asking is akin to asking what crushing ore has to do with your brakes. Nothing at all, directly, but if it never happened, no one would able to make your brakes.

Just why the dangerous asteroids are around. See next entry

DAVID: Once again you are using your human judgment to consider God's work. Humans judged the human retina and laughed at its strange backwards, upside down arrangement, but human research shows it is the best retina extant for precise vision. Now you comment fits that example:
"Why would your God create billions and billions of solar systems that come and go, all for the sake of one tiny planet? What a waste of energy!"
How do you KNOW it is a waste of energy. Our solar system requires a special kind of sun, not a common style star, as one example of Hugh Ross's comments, presented yesterday, about our special Earth. It is YOUR human judgment that gets in your way.

Of course I don't "KNOW" anything, and nor do you, but what other judgement can either of us use? Please explain, then, how you think a solar system that died billions of years ago, billions of light years away from our own, might have been vital for the the production of human beings. If you can’t do so, then you should be able to understand why I am sceptical.

Tony: I know David and myself believe in a God, regardless of whether we disagree on His/Her nature. What I wonder is how much more evidence of extreme improbability is need before others come around to the idea that life without a God is (IMHO) a simple impossibility.

Cosmology is one of many areas of improbability. Look at the inside of a living cell.

DAVID’s comment: the more the Earth is studied, the more exclusivity it presents. It could well be the only planet in the universe that supports life. It certainly appears to represent God at work.

TONY: I know David and myself believe in a God, regardless of whether we disagree on His/Her nature. What I wonder is how much more evidence of extreme improbability is need before others come around to the idea that life without a God is (IMHO) a simple impossibility.

dhw: As an agnostic, I find the design argument (the enormous complexity of even the most basic forms of life) extremely compelling. However, the possible exclusivity of the Earth is far from compelling. Why would your God create billions and billions of solar systems that come and go, all for the sake of one tiny planet? What a waste of energy! (At least life elsewhere might remove that objection). The sheer immensity - perhaps even infinity - of the universe creates doubts: which is harder to believe in – a mind which incredibly has no origin and can encompass infinity, or an incredibly lucky combination in an infinity of combinations? I use “incredibly” in its most literal sense, because that is the agnostic’s dilemma. I cannot believe in either explanation. And so I am wrong one way or the other! Ah, but which way?

Once again you are using your human judgment to consider God's work. Humans judged the human retina and laughed at its strange backwards, upside down arrangement, but human research shows it is the best retina extant for precise vision. Now you comment fits that example:
"Why would your God create billions and billions of solar systems that come and go, all for the sake of one tiny planet? What a waste of energy!"

How do you KNOW it is a waste of energy. Our solar system requires a special kind of sun, not a common style star, as one example of Hugh Ross's comments, presented yesterday, about our special Earth. It is YOUR human judgment that gets in your way.

TONY: I know David and myself believe in a God, regardless of whether we disagree on His/Her nature. What I wonder is how much more evidence of extreme improbability is need before others come around to the idea that life without a God is (IMHO) a simple impossibility.

As an agnostic, I find the design argument (the enormous complexity of even the most basic forms of life) extremely compelling. However, the possible exclusivity of the Earth is far from compelling. Why would your God create billions and billions of solar systems that come and go, all for the sake of one tiny planet? What a waste of energy! (At least life elsewhere might remove that objection). The sheer immensity - perhaps even infinity - of the universe creates doubts: which is harder to believe in – a mind which incredibly has no origin and can encompass infinity, or an incredibly lucky combination in an infinity of combinations? I use “incredibly” in its most literal sense, because that is the agnostic’s dilemma. I cannot believe in either explanation. And so I am wrong one way or the other! Ah, but which way?