I mean once you get to the point of outright denying science there is nothing else I can say.

You assert, I assert. Stalemate.

What you have to show is that God CAN'T know what will happen at the quantum level, not that someone bound by space and time can't know, which is all Bell does. I'm not even sure that's true as an absolute.

See Eddi, all you have to do is prove a negative. Ready, set, GO! Not to mention the presupposition of God's existence before we even get there. Ok, now GOGOGO!!!!!!

My point was you can't prove randomness, only God can know because only omniscience can know all things that will determine the possibility of randomness. Or stated another way, only God can prove anything absolutely, including a negative.

BTW, looking at some net stuff on Bell, it seems what he shows is there's more in heaven and earth than what we used to dream of in our philosophy. Some take the idea of non-local to mean proof of a supernatural world. I don't know if it does that, but surely that which is outside nature may well influence what is inside nature, so the apparent randomness of the quantum world may be entirely non-random when ALL of reality, including that outside what we call nature, is taken into account.

Again, what I said - finite humans simply can't make universal statements with certainty about all possibility.

No. The mutations are random, the chances of survival are not random. The Weasel program does have a number of things which make is unlike evolution, which Dawkins obv understands, but nothing that you mentioned.

You don't seem to understand how evolution works, so I don't think you have any chance of understanding the answer to that question if it even makes sense.

Figured you would give up on logic sooner or later.

With all due respect, how can you argue once the debate gets to: prove that an invisible, omnicient being can't tell what is random or not and can spot quarks?

I don't even need to reference God in this debate. The point is that man is finite and therefore simply can't make assertions about the boundaries of the possible. A very simple proposition that is completely logical and which you irrationally deny.

You've misunderstood the weasel program. The mutations are random. The selection isn't. Natural selection is not a random process.

I do understand that. The issue of NS is separate. And I believe Dawkins admitted the program is one of artificial selection.

What I've said is that even if the mutations are genuinely random in an absolute sense, that doesn't preclude design in the result. After all, that's what weasel does - the sentence was the designed target achieved through random mutations by artificial means.

You can say this about anything that ever happens.

The mutations are trivially random but within a designed range so that the results are predetermined. It's fair to say then that the mutations are not really random either because only the ones that achieve the target are allowed - that isn't true randomness, anymore than saying "Heads I win, tails you win" is truly random. You've designated only 2 possible outcomes, and if the further result is, for instance, whoever wins the money will be donated to X charity, then the final result has no random element at all.

Exactly - that's the point. You simply can't say that evolution is undesigned - at least not as a scientific statement. So stop saying it, Dawkins, and you will get less flack.

I already admitted that none of this disproves the possibility of design. But it doesn't disprove the flying spaghetti monster, or the fact that trees are really controlling all our actions, or that we are all just figments of your imagination, and you are a head in a jar in God's laboratory.

What I did intimate, however, is that the less mysterious all these natural processes become, the better we understand them, the less chance there is that God is necessary to fill in the gaps of our knowledge.

How is that irrational?

So think of DNA as a four-sided die. I'm saying the weasel program is a perfect analogy for natural selection, but you're even mangling the statement that it's not.

You are using a very bizarre definition of random. So a random drawing would not be random because the people that get selected out win the prize? It is funny to watch the ridiculous lengths you go to in denying something so obvious because you think the word "random" here somehow weakens your worldview.

No. Dawkins is arguing against people who claim that they can clearly see the elements of design by looking at living things. This is totally wrong and you should be giving flack to the outright liars that are claiming this is true. Obv science can't disprove invisible dragons and the type of things you are talking about.

I'm not questioning the value of knowing natural processes. I've already said many, many times that it's possible some form of even macro is true. But knowledge of natural processes doesn't exclude God - that's the issue. Atheists think that identifying a natural law excludes God. But that doesn't follow, anymore than finding a working watch excludes a human designer. Just because the watch operates without you having to consult the watch factory doesn't mean the factory is unnecessary.

The cartoon was irrational as an answer to my posts. I'm not saying the proof that God exists is that you can't prove it. I'm saying you can't prove that genuine randomness exists. And again, even apart from God, that idea holds, because humans are finite. There could be laws we don't know about, for instance. What Bell shows, at least for the sake of the argument, is that there are no hidden local variables - but what about non-local variables? Just as a for-instance.

No. Dawkins himself admits there is an overwhelming appearance of design. Else why call it a blind WATCHMAKER? Why not a blind roulette wheel?

Sorry, that should have been "a designer". He is arguing against people you think that evolution plus natural selection is unable to explain biological diversity which is completely wrong.

You're missing the point. I can admit even genuine randomness. But it's trivial if it exists and God exists. And yes, genuine randomness with no limit would weaken my worldview. Yours too, if you think about it.

But he also insists that it shows there is no designer. But it doesn't. I don't want to get into an evolution debate again so though I'm skeptical about the ability of Neo-Darwinism to fully explain biological diversity, I don't think either side can prove their case at this time.

I don't have any idea what you are talking about. Most people would call the weasel program random. Whether there is some invisible dragon out there that can predict the results of random processes is not really interesting to me.

Not Wiki:

Seems differing from chance equates to non-random.