Thanks Jeanie, and Bex.

No, the point is that we do not know the mind of god, cannot know the mind of god (or we would be gods).

Yet that sounds like an experiment to me, treating people as game pieces between two factions that are part of the same design.

That also does not mean that it is a game. It's just another way of looking at things. Different words have different overtones, like musical notes, that can be harmonious or disharmonious in different situations.

The word evolution - just the word - is enough to set off disharmonious feelings in some creationists, yet it is part of the supreme harmony of nature to a naturalist.

Russ and CTD have introduced the concept of games by talking about probabilities and roulette wheels. My example of dice is much more realistic because there are whole areas that are unknown: is there some factor that makes the dice land one side up no matter how many times it is tossed? It could be in the design of the dice, or it could be in the way the environment that the dice lands in is designed. It is also easy to "fix" roulette wheels so that they always end up on the same number, no matter how many spins you use.

Name any probability you want, from 0 < p < 1, and I can design the dice to replicate it. Does that mean that the dice represent reality? Not when you can have an infinite variety of dice and no way of telling which is representative of reality.

Likewise the calculation of probability deals with many unknowns, and any result is based on assumption. By changing those assumptions one can change the calculated result in much the same way that the dice can be made to fit the probability.

For instance, we can calculate the probability of throwing 100 normal six sided balanced dice with the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on them onto a flat smooth surface, such that each di has an equal probability of landing on a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 (thus ruling out random interference and bias in the tosses).

How many throws will it take for them to all be 6's?

Well if we assume that they are always thrown all together, the probability of one toss being all 6's is 1 in 6^100 = 6.533x10^77 so on average it would take 6.533x10^77 tosses (although it could happen on the first toss or not happen for twice that many tosses).

However, if we assume that 6's are selected and kept after each toss while tossing the remainders, then on the first toss we will likely have 100/6 = 16.7 ... 16 or 17 with 6's (on average, we'll round down so that this results in a larger number of tosses). On the second toss we will likely have (100-16)/6 = 14 with 6's, on the third toss we will likely have (100-16-14)/6 = 11 with 6's, ... and after nineteen tosses we are down to 5 dice that have not yet landed on a six. The likelyhood of getting a 6 on the next toss is 5/6, or just less than 1, so if we continue to round down for our selection process

Now just to throw some random non-selection into the picture we can say these 5 have to be tossed until they all land on 6's. The probability of this is 1 in 6^5 = 1/7776, or 7776 tosses on average. This plus 19 = 7795 tosses. so in less than 8,000 tosses we have accomplished the same result as the first example where it took 6.533x10^77.

If we don't round down, but assume we can use fractional dice to represent the remainder we end up with 1 di after 27 throws, and we can assume a maximum of 6 throws to get a 6: the result is 33 throws.

Rather a remarkable difference, caused by just a little selection.

Obviously with this range of possible results for calculating probability with just two different assumptions, it should be clear that any calculation where assumptions are used can be vastly different depending on the assumptions alone. I don't even need to discuss how the math can be wrong.

So you believe god is using "loaded" dice? We can use the same argument for evolution, that it is not a random process, but one that is "loaded" by selection. And we can make the same argument for abiogenesis, that the formation of life from chemicals is "loaded" by the chemicals being naturally available and the laws of chemistry on how molecules combine non-randomly.

Free will means there are random choices that can be made.

We know that there are random cause and effect system - ones that have different results at different times from the same inputs.

We know that there are chaotic systems, where small changes in initial conditions can result in large and unpredictable results.

According to Bex, and I agree, if these things exist in reality, then they are part of the design of reality.

Well, I take a larger view. I think god became the universe, and during the inflation period set the natural laws in process that would govern the behavior of energy and matter (oneness and duality) and the interplay between intelligence/spirit against the rise of entropy (another oneness and duality). That at the end of time, when entropic death of the universe occurs, that god will be reformed, reborn, from the ever increasing spirit. All the different faiths are just alternate paths to the same end. Abiogenesis and evolution are just ways for life to evolve and raise intelligence\spirit. At the bottom of the mountain there are many paths, at the top only one. Don't mistake the path for the top?

Curiously this gets back to my earlier questions: can a god make another god? can a god make a better god? I think the answer is yes, what is yours?

Enjoy.