It is definitely in the Bible. Cynically, God seems to swing wildly between mercy and vengeance, but it's clear he would feel justified in a lot more vengeance than he takes but doesn't because he loves people. Less cynically, he's planning for Jesus and salvation the whole time, and sorta trying to keep the evil from getting out of hand with the occasional smiting. You can make the logic work if you want to.

This is edging into religious debate, which the guidelines ask people to keep off HN

> The idea that living things, which are far more intricately organized at every level than any machine we have made, could have arisen by some unknown series of chance steps is a fairy tale.

Really? Because when you look at something like the human retina, the organization is embarrassing.

Especially since there are older, extant examples with better organization.

Interesting comment. FWIW the idea of God as Being accords with Spinoza's philosophy, which in turn accords with Greek philosophy and ultimately accords with biblical philosophy. These are roots among the many roots of our modern world.

What we learn from these philosophies is that God is necessarily the author of life and love, but as well hatred and destruction. Worth noting that the latter are most (but not exclusively) expressed in human conduct. Among all animals humans have the most developed ability to decide how to act. That ability is not absolute, often enough logic or reasoning is bypassed and emotion rules.

Naturally cognition is not unbounded, we are limited by constraints of our construction. It means aspects of the universe are unknowable, we can't know what we're missing.

But knowing what we can know is an obligation of our privileged existence. As knowledge expands it exposes the utter complexity of all things emerging from common fundamental processes.

Seeing what is seen, a human may for a moment get a glimpse of the hand that binds everything together. That's a gift if there ever was one.

4 days to respond? I had to scroll pretty far in my threads to see this. And no response to my points about bad faith argumentation and not having read TFA? And you still want to argue theology and metaphysics despite my pointing out that it is a violation of the guidelines? I'm not going to waste my time explaining to you why "God designed life" is semantically incoherent, which would just get us deeper into an ideological/metaphysical dispute. And beyond that, you say "clearly" but billions of intelligent scientifically educated people think otherwise, so in addition to be stupid and ignorant it's smugly arrogant bad faith.

> a violation of the Law of Biogenesis

An obviously circular argument, as any intellectually honest person with any sense acting in good faith can see. That life generally comes from life rather than, say, maggots spontaneously generating from meat as was once believed does not mean that abiogenesis isn't possible -- this is a grossly dishonest argument crafted by those despicable worms at "Answers in Genesis". And by basic logic if there were a "law" that abiogenesis violates then theogenesis would violate it too. Adam and Eve weren't born so they violate this supposed law. This is obvious and only the most profoundly stupid and dishonest people could deny it. The fact is that there is no such "law" and people who idiotically base arguments on it don't understand what empirical (as opposed to those imposed by governments) laws are.

As my LLM put it, "The entire apologetics argument relies on a massive equivocation fallacy and historical semantic games".

I despise willfully ignorant intellectually dishonest godbot science denying trash so I won't see any further comments from you (muted with my frontend to HN) and you won't hear further from me.