that in this case an argument for the most theistic God is a lot more probable. — Barry Z

An argument is probable, in the United States, but the case for it is meaningless.

"How does God put mind to matter? We don't know. We just know that he does." -- this is how I see theists would describe the answer to the problem. But it patently does not make sense to me. There is no God; not that we know. How do we know what he does when we don't know he exists and what his qualities are? The scirptures are mere fantasy, fairy tales of deep complexity. You can't rely on them for any knowledge of god.

I am sorry, Zeleb G and Barry Z, but I am an old man with advanced case of inability to memorize trivia. I am still good at analysis and stuff, but not at memorizing rote knowledge. Please put me out of my misery: Which of the two of you is for god, and which is not? I am confused.

So we don't know at all how God created organisms. Do we. No, we don't. — god must be atheist

Another good question! Organisms could only be created by a force (God) intervening in a way that would be arbitrary. That is why I reject that line of reasoning. Neither deism nor pandeism works with that constraint. However if the universe, unified with this force as in pandeism, instead goes infinitely back in time, the problem of creation disappears, leaving a different though lesser issue to deal with.

If we assume that the universe goes back to infinite past (which assumption I am happy with), and we assume that god did not create organisms, then they must have generated by no design and by matter forming by itself.

I say this because there are KNOWN instances of matter in the world when no organisms lived in our common current sense of the concept. So in the infinite chain of events of matter moving, there are times of creation and times of complete annihilation.

Where does god go when nobody believes in him? He, after all, is a matter of belief, not a matter of matter.

If we assume that the universe goes back to infinite past (which assumption I am happy with), and we assume that god did not create organisms, then they must have generated by no design and by matter forming by itself. — god must be atheist

I see no reason to accord matter by itself any special privilege to be a precursor for organism. If matter has been in existence since the beginning why can't organism have been with us since the beginning? In an infinite reality that would mean they both have always existed.

I keep seeing this thread and misreading it as "A Philosophy of Orgasm", and wondering for a moment what that would even be. (Are orgasms actually the same as religious experiences? Is it really a "little death", some interruption of consciousness that gives one a glimpse of what's beyond this mortal veil?)

I see no reason to accord matter by itself any special privilege to be a precursor for organism. If matter has been in existence since the beginning why can't organism have been with us since the beginning? In an infinite reality that would mean they both have always existed. — Barry Z

The problem with that is the periodic annihilation of all life in the state of maximum matter decay, and in the times of maximum entropy (no useful energy left) and another problem is the recurring big bangggggg. Life is definitely regenerated all the time, and it can be regenerated without it going totally extinct.