Yes, that i must be this way and cannot be any other way.
Then I fear you won't get what you are asking for. But may I ask why you insist to use this double standard for the views you agree and disagree with?
I understand this, too, and therefore, it does not give me nor ANYONE a concrete natural solution and it is still left to a person's belief system. What is a shame to me is that it is not merely perpetrated to the world a conclusion of proof but it is represented as "cannot be any other way." I doesn't matter where you go on this subject for information most represent it as proof positive and there "cannot be any other way" or conclusion.
There are these concepts of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and all that. Language is not precise, so that such ambiguities exist. You just have to be able to identify them.
But to come back to your double standard... can you or anyone give me a concrete supernatural solution... or am I free to believe that you are a Artificial Intelligence from a future parallel universe gone mad? Give me proof that you are what you claim! If you cannot, I can believe anything I can imagine.
I understand this and I can even see WHY the conclusion, ALTHOUGH there are those that have other reasons why in some cases they do not conclude and they give their valid reasons for disagreeing.
The "valid reasons for disagreeing" is where we... disagree. Again I perceive the common theistic double standard. Just consider the example I made about my father and me... you considered it ludicrous. You didn't even consider it, consider my potential "valid reasons" for disagreement.
So think! If you will disregard the same "valid reasons" that you use for case A in an equally "unprovable" case B... what does that say about the validity of your reasons?
But from my vantage point I think that that same evidence can also be concluded for a Creator's design.
No, you cannot make this conclusion... at least not without arbitrarily making comparisons and exclusions.
I guess I don't get what you are alluding to here. It sounds somewhat ludicrous.
I guess you are asking here about the father/son counterexample which I have already declared to be somewhat ludicrous butt... IF I understand what you are asking, this is the best way I can answer you. No, you would not be directly created by God.
"No, you would not be directly created by God." An answer without the slightest attempt of an explanation.
Could it be that you are aware that you don't have any explanations... that you cannot have any explanations beyond personal preference?
This is the question we have to ask in such a case: what could we see that would hint at a descend? What could we see that would hint at a special creation? Are there any other explanations for what we observe? Can we exclude/include these explanations? For what reasons?
We know that lifeforms procreate. We now know what material is used and transferred when lifeforms procreate. We know how such material behaves, and what can influence it.
We can analyse this hereditary material in, say, chimps and humans and may conclude: hey, they are very similar. They are related!
Or we can conclude: no, they are indeed similar... but they very specially
made to be similar. Yep, that's it! This is a valid reason to disagree with the first variant! They could have been made this way!
We can analyse the hereditary material in, say, two humans - Freodin Sr. and Freodin Jr. - and my conclude: hey, they are very similar. They are related!
Or we can conclude: no, they are indeed similar... but specially made by a common designer using the same design. Oh no, no way. Impossible! This is not a valid reason to disagree with the first variant. They were definitly not made this way.
Do you see the double standard?