If we take that life & death is dependant on nature/God
What do you mean by "nature/God"? This is a bizarre and undefined term you've introduced to a topic you started in the Science, Mathematics, Medicine & Technology subforum.
To say life is dependent on nature is a pointless thing to say. So is death, so is non-life--in fact, so is everything that is not supernatural (and personally, I reject the existence of the supernatural). If by nature you mean non-human life, you really should use more precise language.
And let's leave the "God" stuff out of this discussion. It has no place in this subforum. The Goddidit hypothesis is completely indistinguishable from having no hypothesis at all since there is no measurement you can take that would be different if "Goddidit" or not "Goddidit".
What does this have to do with the flaws in your arguments about the morality of cooking that I've pointed out?
and they are only entitled to effect it for keeping the nature in balance
What do you mean by keeping nature "in balance" and who says we are only entitled to do things that keep nature in balance (whatever that means)?
If you're trying to construct a logical argument leading to a conclusion about a moral proposition, you can't start by simply asserting that moral proposition as if there is some prescriptive law that dictates it. That's just another form of question begging.
consider that pruning/thining/weeding etc. done with our consious act is also right to kep nature in balance then both these can be treated as acts done for nature's progess, nature's maintainance and nature's balance....and so may not be an interferance in nature.
Your reasoning is all over the place. You're introducing one undefined term after another and then arbitrarily applying your premises.
You said earlier that we can't interfere with nature. I pointed out that we must interfere with nature to be alive. (And surely no morality can require that we not do what we must do.) Now you're backing off that premise by adding in this undefined notion of "balance". So interfering with nature isn't interfering with nature when it's for some undefined outcome of keeping nature in balance or maintaining nature. (Does that mean that un-pruned trees aren't natural? That they're out of balance and immoral in their lack of human intervention-that-isn't-interference?)
Now there are real meanings to terms like homeostasis and balance, but that's not how you're using the term. So it's up to you to define your terms or quit introducing new undefined terms. Basically this "balance" silliness is just a way for you to say that some "interference" isn't interference even though by any conventional usage of the word, it is.
It's as if you start from the conclusion you want and make up nonsensical principles (that you refuse to apply in a consistent manner) to try to pretend you've created an argument to arrive at that conclusion.
And I still haven't heard you retract the first one I criticized: the idea that cooking foods that are mature is wrong. In fact, it sounds like you have arbitrarily decided that some foods ought not be cooked, and then you invented this principle to attempt to justify it. When I point out the problem with it (if you attempt to apply it to all foods), you blithely continue employing undefined terms and claiming to use other principles which you will also refuse to apply consistently.
:-
