DAVID: We all do not differ except I believe God provided the intelligent instructions.

dhw: Then we are poles apart. Talbott and I are arguing for the autonomous intelligence of cells, not for robots obeying God’s instructions.

DAVID: Talbott is not you. He has only raised the issue of how come cells act so intelligently, without answering the question!! He wants answers. I like to follow him because he so clearly defines what is missing. I fill it with God as designer.

dhw: Talbott argues the case for cellular intelligence. So do I. He doesn’t know the source of that intelligence. Nor do I. And so where do Talbott and I differ?

You don't and neither do I. Only I give an answer. The cells act intelligently and I point to God as designer

DAVID: [..] Grudgingly you offer God as possibly the cause because you have no other answer.

dhw: …maybe the cause of life would be the same cause of cellular intelligence: 1) God, 2) chance, 3) some form of panpsychism – all equally difficult to believe in. That is why some of us are agnostics. I may have said this before. ;-)

DAVID: I think chance is an unreasonable theory, considering the complexity of biochemical life. As for panpsychism, it is a blown up concept only because we do have the mental capacity to invent all sorts of idiotic suggestions. Minds at invention play. Why not try on multiverses for size? ;-) ;-)

dhw: You said I had no other answer. I gave you two other answers. I also told you that I find both of them difficult to believe in, so why do you have to tell me that they are difficult to believe in? I find your own theory equally difficult to believe in, which is why I am an agnostic. This discussion is a cul de sac.

Agreed.