[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your replies!

In post 1919 you said: "As to the proof: It is not faith if the proof is possible, even if the philosophy prof marks up the paper so it bleeds."

But in post 1923 you said: "Radical. Science is the body of peer-reviewed published work. Perhaps science is a passing fad, but this would grease the skids."

Er, I cannot reconcile these two statements. If your "proof" were possible even though it was rejected by the authorities, you still wouldn't want it published in an outlet for rejected papers even though you consider it a "proof"?

We, or life, would naturally occur in places where we, or life, is possible. We would not naturally be where our existence is not possible.

Evidently you do not believe this is a statement of faith, i.e. metaphysical naturalism. But the object of the belief is nature itself, i.e. that "reality (all that there is) is that which occurs in nature".

IOW, the appeal to the anthropic principle in lieu of a scientific or mathematically plausible explanation is tantamount to asserting the metaphysical naturalist "religion".

It is precisely the same kind of argument as "God did it" - only in this case "nature did it".

[RightWhale]

Metaphysics is not a belief system.

If your "proof" were possible

It is possible, it just isn't ready for publication. Prof says, in red ink, that the abduction needs to address all the questions. That will require more work.

[RightWhale]

I cannot reconcile these two statements

That is because they are separate topics. They are neither contradictory nor supplementary nor mutually exclusive.