And my point is that you can't show something is random... Having no restriction doesn't change that.
It doesn't matter is something is random or pseudo random. There is no apriori reason to think that there are restrictions on what modifications procreation can do the the genetic structure of a species. You said "
Evolution is the process through how it played out. Its just I don't agree that there are 'random' mutations that led to it." yet you provide no evidence that any of the mutations required to go from single cell bacterium like life to us are impossible.
Suppose we had a complete genome sequence for every ancestor of mine, from my parents right back to the very beginning of life when it was little more than a clump of proteins. Each generation would be slightly different from the previous one, the genetic code each time being altered by environment, disease, procreation, radiation etc. If your claim about this not being 'random' (which I take you to be saying it was guided, right?) is to be justified you'd have to demonstrate that some of the mutations are not possible by random chemical or biological processes which can occur naturally.
My point is that all of those mutations can (and it is my belief that they did) occur in a perfectly natural way, no need for God to reach down and tweak things or do anything to guide the process. The mutations occur due to random chemical/biological errors and their effects eventually manifest themselves as things which hinder or help the animal they exist within.
Do you deny that in principle any of the mutations/alterations which have occured between myself (or any one of us) and the first kind of life on this planet can occur by natural means? The issue of random vs pseudo-random is irrelevant.
So proof is only dependent on known explanations? And probably these explanations have to agree with some other principals as well which help restrict explanations?
How does that follow from what I said? If something in Nature can be explained in two different ways then it serves as proof for neither.
There are infinite explanations for everything, some known the other unknown. So 'proof' would never be reached, and so I use the word in its loose form of evidence = proof.
Exactly, there is no 'proof' in science, only more and more confidence in a model being a good approximation to Nature. You admit there's no such thing as proof yet you also claim to have 'proof' for God. Can't you see the contradiction you're making for yourself?
If you noticed my initial response had nothing to do with life or evolution- so I don't understand then why did you invoke the anthropic principle?
You claimed the universe being the way it is or science being science is evidence and proof of God. I provided you an alternative explanation and thus demonstrated your evidence is not proof. I'm trying to get you to realise that simply believing something doesn't mean you have proof.
Not if you assume that 'who' can also be 'what'.
But all too often its also assumed that who/what is a benevolent intelligence which watches over mankind and listens to us and wants us to pray to it and it provides an afterlife etc etc. Even if 'who' were not loading the question and God actually exists I highly doubt he/she/it is anything like the deities described by any human religion. If a god or gods did get all of the universe rolling he/she/it/they clearly don't have anything to do with it now.
While others claim He the God of everything and everyone, not simply 'theirs'.
I refer to their belief. A Christian says the god who made the universe is the Christian god. A muslim says its Allah. A hindu says its Vishnu. An ancient greek would say Chronos created the universe. Someone overly obsessed with JRR Tolkein would say Iluvator. Even if someone were to accept some
one made the universe, who is that someone? Any religion claims its their god or gods and they all provide the same amount of evidence,
nothing. Hence even if someone were illogical enough to fall for the flawed "Everything has a first cause. Lets call the cause of the universe 'God'" nonsense that still doesn't mean any particular relgion has got it right.
Although they also make the distinction 'everything natural needs a cause'... God being 'supernatural' would be excluded from such a restriction. But similarly you could apply that same word to the universe and say that 'Universe is supernatural'- but that is against what we call 'natural' which is everything about the universe.
So why can't we just say that the universe, within which we see the 'laws of Nature' etc, was created by a previous supernatural universe which operated by different laws and thus would be regarded as supernatural to our universe? That way you only need hypothesis another universe with different rules. Universes with different rules are not that far from current ideas. Hell, you can even use current ideas to construct the well defined notion of different laws of Nature occuring in different parts of the same universe.
While those require us to assume something all we do is assume a variation of what we have already seen. Assuming an intelligent being with universe creating power is a huge assumption. And assuming that he (I use the pronoun he only for convenience) does exist its another huge assumption to make that he's at all interested in us in any special way and that any of the human religions are right.
Quantum mechanics is pretty crazy to someone just beginning to learn it but its all based in very standard methodology. It talks about things appearing and disappearing and yes, a universe doing that is a little different but its an extension of an experimentally justified set of ideas and observations. Or there's the GR notion of closed time-like curves and the universe created itself. No beginning, no end but a finite amount of time. Or an oscillating universe. All of these ideas come from examining known behaviour of things in the universe and extrapolating. The existence of God requires assuming something without reason or evidence or logic. I have no problem with people doing that provided they know and admit they are doing it.
'God did it' is the most basic (beginning) of insight
It offers no insight. It is just a place filler which makes people feel better about their ignorance. There will always be more questions to ask, more gaps to fill, more things to examine.
Someone saying "How does the Sun work" and getting the reply "God does it" doesn't learn about the Sun. It doesn't answer their question, it doesn't let them deduce the age of the Sun or its distance or how it actually works, its a vapid hollow answer. Saying "God did it" just intellectual laziness because it makes people feel comfortable with the fact they aren't actually putting in effort to investigate something. We will never know everything because we will never do every experiment, go to every place, see every event, do every equation, test every idea. Saying "God did it" makes people
stop experimenting, thinking, testing, developing because they think they have an answer when they don't, they are still ignorant.
Accepting 'God did it' is a lazy cop out.
