You have said a mouthful in two posts and requested my clarification on multiple points. I hope you don’t mind that rather than attempting to eat the whole elephant at once, I will clear up one point (which I hope may shed light on several other questions you have) and then I will ask you one question.
“I was taught Darwinian evolution and methodologial naturalism, resulting in the logical conclusion that God does not exist.
How in the world is that “the logical conclusion”?”
It is the logical conclusion for anyone who sees that special Creation is a foundational doctrine of the Bible. Pleasse refer to my negative logical argument in post #5 of this thread. You do not fit into the first premise. I do. So do many others. The Bible is either true or it is not, and if it is not true, the God it describes does not exist. Many people are not willing to simply drop what they see as a foundational doctrine of Scriptures to accomodate a naturalistic view of the origin and evolution of life. Rather, they have to decide which is true. For decades, I thought that the latter was true. My salvation out of that doctrine of man started me on a journey that ended up at the foot of the cross. Amen!
This is a very crucial point and one that no one here seems to consider. I am talking about a certain group of people. It happens to be a rather large group of people. This group of people does not encompass BioLogos people. But the overwhelming response from the BioLogos rank and file has been denial, condescension, and/or ridicule. Thus my frustration.
Now my question for you is this: “I believe God created the universe in such a way that biological life was inevitable because God intended the “very good” natural processes he created to produce such a biosphere,” and this: “If “purely materialistic explanations” were not sufficient, it would imply that God failed in creating them to function well and fulfill their purposes!”
Surely you have good reason to believe that the four fundamental forces of nature alone provide a sufficient causal explanation for the emergence of life in an inanimate universe. I would love it if you could tell me what it is about the properties of physics and chemistry that give you the confidence that the information and molecular machinery of life can emerge through those processes alone.
In all the hundreds of posts you did not read, as well as all of the posts you have read, you will search in vain for a single defense of this position you are so confident in. So thank you in advance for at last clearing this up for me.
p.s. since you asked (in a roundabout way): Wheeling Jesuit College