[b]BACTERIAS’ ROLE IN HUMAN BIOMES[/b]
DAVID: [i]My point is the 'bad' bacteria is our human interpretation and God may have designed them as 'good'.[/i]

dhw: [i]So who would the murderous ones have been “good” for? See "[b]Theodicy[/b]...” for a full discussion. (We can drop “[b]Role in human therapy[/b]” as it deals with the same subject.)[/i]

DAVID: [i]The article points out so-called 'bad' may act to block 'bad'.[/i]

All of which raises the question of why your God deliberately designed ‘bad’ in the first place. See the “[b]Theodicy[/b]” thread.

[b]Proper Big Bang view[/b]
DAVID: [i]If we are sure the universe had a beginning,[b]therefore we have absolute proof of God.[/b] […] Combined with the designed complexity of living biochemistry, the probability of His existence becomes very strong[/i].[dhw’s bold]

dhw: […] [i]We don’t know if the Big Bang happened, and we don’t know what preceded it if it did happen. If it did, I have no idea how you can possibly claim it provides absolute proof of God. […] [b]Why do you think a sourceless conscious before is possible but a sourceless unconscious before is impossible?[/b] But yes, the complexity of biochemistry is indeed a good argument for the existence of a designing mind or minds.[/i][…]

DAVID: [i]Back to design. Only a designing mind could have created our reality. You have, previously, raised the issue of a chance mulling together of energies to do it.[/i]

I challenged your statement that the BB provides absolute proof of God. How can it possibly do so? But I agreed with your good design argument. So you proceed to ignore my bolded question, and repeat the design argument! Yet more dodging!