you said, "some likely disagree with your premise as well that god has a plan for mankind requiring agency to work." My point was that anyone thinking they can prove God one way or the other by logic is not possible. For believers, it was meant to be impossible, because He designed His plan on the principal of faith. For unbelievers, it is impossible to prove because he does not exist. Either position cannot be proven by logic or science, that is my point.

I was not conflating NDT's statement to more than he said, I previously pointed out why the conclusion provided by his example is an oversimplification that does not consider all possibilities.

It seems you have no argument that directly opposes my own, so you are taking little cuts on the periphery (Many doesn't mean all-agreed, but it is still a prevailing thought in philosophy and starting to rear its ugly head in science) making up things I did not say (intellectually lazy/stupid/conflating my addressing NDT's argument with addressing the point you made) instead of addressing my points head on.

If you are not going to be intellectually honest, I think this discussion is over.