Of course it supports god not existing. We can explain belief in god without god existing, therefore, that's one less argument in favour of god's existence.
Your belief system (or may I call insistence) that everything of a human phenomena must be explained by evolution. The existence of belief doesn’t prove God’s existence anymore than the existence of non-belief (or denial) of God’s existence. But that was never an argument I was making.
You are using belief in god as evidence of god's existence. But bizarrely are limiting it to only your beliefs.
Nope I am not. You are misunderstanding the argument I am making
You think there is something special about humans existing as opposed to an alternative.
Nope I am a realist, even if there were parallel universe* (which I highly doubt it – I’m more inclined to different interpretations of quantum physics), it is irrelevant because I’m not living and discussing these things in such a universe.
(*to narrow it down, where the condition of humans existing was false)
The probability of a dice rolling is a bad example since each outcome is equally likely; compared with the probability of life existing to, are very different. Its more like being surprised of winning the jackpot when the probability of not.
Again the fact that humans exist doesn’t prove the existence of God, correct. But your insistence that somehow God doesn’t exist because if he did, he could create a world where the humans breathed oxygen (not if he created the world with the same laws as now).
I'm saying the need for humans to do things like breathe oxygen is categorically better explained by naturalistic evolution than god…
Ah but naturalistic evolution doesn’t explain why the laws of physics that necessitate life breathing oxygen.
If God created the universe, he created it with order. We now understand that order as laws, and the rest follows from there. (If you are going to say things about God’s intent for humans, it has to come from what God has said though – which is going to be a problem for you). The issue is you are making a hypothetical of something you do not know.
With regards to naturalistic evolution being a better explanation, it only explains how things are.
This is the reality we have in front of us.....so what? The only possible reality in which we can sit hear about ponder the amazingness of human's existence is the one in which humans happened to exist. The fact humans exist cannot be an argument for the existence of god unless you assume the point of the universe existing was for humans to come into existence, but there's no objective reason for thinking this.
If (and only if) God exists then his perspective is objective...
And even then conceding you don't that God exists, and you don't know what he wants; how can you have any grounds for saying that you know his purposes in a particular matter? You wouldn't, as is self-evident.
God has revealed his purposes in Scripture which you have rejected. So obviously if you reject the grounds for what he has said, that obviously you won’t know his purposes.
I don’t see such an issue with God creating things in such a way that humans need to breath the one element in the environment that based on the order that God made. The only real difference between your explanation and mine is the justification for why the laws of nature are the configuration they are.
I know you say but humans didn’t have to exist, but that this is not reality.
The reality is humans exist, and all of evolution is doing to seeking to explain how we got here. Sure it might suggest we could have developed differently if the environment was different.
Secondly your objection that we are weaker doesn’t fit with the assumed principle that we are evolving to the environment (to be as fit for the environment), so it is doesn’t make sense to call it a weakness, when (although not necessitated on the basis of evolutionary principles).
It is a case of false dilemma. I’m not forced to choose between a physical explanation of a mechanism of change of humans (or another animal) in an environment, and God did it. This is a false dilemma, and is fallacious – meaning your argument doesn’t quite establish what you think it does.
Apart from some of the specific conjectures (about humans in particular) and some assumptions, you’ll find I don’t actually disagree with the idea that cells mutate.
God breathing is even MORE absurd? Why on earth would god breathe? Why would an all powerful being need a gas to metabolise molecules for energy? HE IS OMNIPOTENT.
I used the language because it is the language that is Scripture, God revealed about himself. But obviously it is not referring to respiration. (God, Word and Spirit or “breath” of God). Its more of a theological thing.
And no, naturalistic evolution is not a rationalisation because there's no expectation that humans would necessarily turn out any particular way or come into existence at all. Only if you're a theist does this expectation exist.
Nope, incorrect, only if you are a realist does that “expectation” (don’t agree with this word) exist. Because if you forget we are studying things backwards in time. We are taking our present reality, and assuming the principles of evolution making inferences that this is what we evolved from and then doing possibilities.
If something that be explained in naturalistic terms, god is superfluous and so the existence of that thing cannot be used as evidence for god's existence.
Well it is because it is, is circular reasoning. Understanding how did human logic evolve presumes human logic (circular).
I would disagree with that logic, because the naturalistic explanation is not be a complete explanation. And again it is categorically different (not mutually exclusive either). And its starting point presumes the laws of physics (in order for it to be logically valid).
The creation of the universe by god is necessarily a miracle.
Yes, because he created ex nihilo, out of nothing.
And creating the universe the way it is must be considered arbitrary because he could have achieved his goal in an infinite number of ways. You cannot for example say god put air on earth so humans could breathe, because he could have made us live without breathing.
That is fallacious logic. We are not saying God put air on earth just for humans to breathe.
Of course humans are a necessary outcome of evolution in your views. They have to be, literally they have to be, unless you think that somehow god set evolution in motion without knowing what the outcome would be and humans just happened to be the product without god knowing this would be the case. And yes, Christianity IS anthropocentric. Humans are the only animals which follow, and which can possibly follow, Christianity.
There is a difference between something being a goal and a necessary outcome (or product).
Christianity is theocentric. Humans are the only beings made in the image of God; but there is a sense Scriptures talks of a relationship between animals and their creator.
No, it's not circular because I don't assume they have to exist in a certain way. We can't explain why they exist the way they do, but this is only a problem if you think them existing in the way they do is necessary. Which it's not, because human's coming into existence isn't necessary.
Again I’m a realist, it is necessary for your explanation to have any explanatory power. A particular environment is needed for the particular things you have been raising with me. Sure it could be have different, but it is isn’t.
Probabilistically, the difference between naturalistic evolution, is that the chance of this reality occurring is indeterminate (yes there are bounds), and for theistic ‘evolution’ it would be unity. Hence why the hypotheticals are invalid.
And "hypotheticals" are perfectly valid because when evaluating the truth value of something, we need to logically compare it with the alternatives.
Probabilistically, the difference between naturalistic evolution, is that the chance (expected value) of this reality occurring is indeterminate (yes there are bounds), and for theistic ‘evolution’ it would be unity. Hence why the hypotheticals are invalid. (Nothing to do with humans).
All you want to do is say "well me getting the vaccine is the reality that exists, and I didn't die from covid so therefore the vaccine saved me from covid".
These are different problem domains. See my comment above.