One would think the main line republicans are in no way happy to have to hitch their wagon to Trump in the mid terms, and beyond. I would not be surprised if they would be delighted to see a tight case of impeachable charges brought to the house. The assumption that Trump is not impeachable because of a Republican majority is tenuous IMO. Would not be surprised if the GOP would be more than happy to get our from under Trump.

so after months and months of tweets of "no collusion" , do you think Trump supporters will give him yet another pass on lying if collusion is proven ?

thanks - and that is just the tip of the ice berg.

The probability of all the needed conditions is on the order of 52! That is a very very large number -
this link is a fun way to imagine it.

https://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html

if this question was not about "God as designer" there would be almost no argument is was by design. It is only that many view the possibility of a designer as zero or near zero that makes them support randomness, of the multi universe explanation. In a sentence - it looks like design - except it can't be because there can't be a designer - it has to be something else.

As an example - in the classic thought experiment:

you enter a room and find me at a table with a deck of cards in front of me.
you begin to turn over the cards and see they are i order ace, 2, 3 all the same suit

I give you 3 hypothesis for this:

1. I spent the last 10 minutes putting them in order
2. I just finished shuffling them - and that is how the ended
3. There are a infinite number of me's you's and tables and decks of cards
we are just aware of this one

all honest answers to this question are of course it is 1. And the only real difference between this and FTA is the respondent excepts my existence as a possibility and some unknown God/Designer as un acceptable. It is just an elevation of science to religion.

While our universe is fine-tuned for carbon life forms, other universes may be fine-tuned for silicon or iron or whathaveyou. Our universe may not be the only type that can harbor life.

What we have then is the denizens of each universe making a fine-tuning argument about ''lifr as we know it''. In short our universe isn't special enough as is made out to be by the FTA. — TheMadFool

That is just a restatement on the randomness or multi universe hypothesis as alternatives for design. And in the FTA the observation is about the sentient beings like us. The evidence for other sentient beings like us existing in some other place in the universe we experience, or in some other theorized other universe has no more basis than a designer. It just comes down to which hypothesis one feels is more probable than another.

For many, on a scale of 0 to 1 the existence of God is near zero, these folks will find any hypothesis other than a designer more likely.

For others the existence of God is near 1 and they will find any hypothesis other than a designer improbable

And both ends of the continuum are reasonable, meaning are not in conflict with fact, and each conclusion is based on faith - one camp a theistic faith, the other a faith in science/man.

FTA is not a proof of the existence of God, and many including me find it in conflict with skeptical theism. What I find most interesting in it however is the extend atheists and hard agnostics will go elevate science to religion in order to to avoid an acknowledgement that given our current actual provable science, design may well be the best hypothesis. And my aside is the same individuals given any similar set of circumstances as FTA that did not involve God would easily rush to design as the best hypothesis.

I addressed this - it depends on treating sentient life as privileged — Relativist

it is the only observation the FTA addresses. Your point here is just another way of saying life as we know it is a random event. It is just saying if the criteria were changed some other form of live could have been, but it didn't so we have this one. That is just the random argument said differently.

Or conversely the multi universe argument that there are an infinite number of different types of life - we are just aware of this one.

I look at a grain of sand under a microscope, and produce a digital map of it's irregular shape. The probability that it would have that exact shape is higher if it was designed. So what? — Relativist

I don't think that is a valid argument. It would be if the argument went I looked at 1 million grains of sand, they all had the exact same irregular shape, therefor it is more probable that they are designed.

The point is the fine tuning argument assumes life has to be life as we know it and that is where the fine tuning argument goes wrong. Different numbers lead to different types of universes, each with their own carbon-type element that could lead to life. The inhabitants of such universes could be making the same argument like the fine tuning argument without realizing that a different set of numbers led to our universe with carbon-based life-forms. — TheMadFool

The FTA starts with the observations that there exist sentient beings like us, and in order for these beings to exist the constraints on the universe are incredibly precise, and for all these precise criteria to happen becomes incredibly unlikely. And then asks for which hypothesis for these observations have a higher probability.

because every world has unlikely existents irrespective of whether the world is actually designed or exists by chance. — Relativist

yet again, i think the point you continue to miss in your objection, and why it is not addressed in the formal argument, is you continue to revert to the conclusion

The probability of (E given design) > probability of (E given no design)

as some truth statement to the effect - therefor there is a designer. That is not the argument. The argument in total is:

The probability of (E given design) > probability of (E given no design) - that is all. It is not a proof of any truth statement - just an argument that design is a more likely hypothesis than others. It demands no proof or completeness of hypothesis from any of the alternatives.

the other piece, which is at the heart of FTA that I am not sure you have addressed is the overwhelming large odds against the observed criteria that exist and support sentient beings like us. Again on the order of 52!. An incredibly large number. This is an important concept of FTA.

also - here is a entrapment of the multi universe alternative:

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Modern%20Cosmology%20in%20Philosophical%20and%20Theological%20Perspective.pdf

more information on his site on this than any or us need

I guess I don't see much difference between FTA and other forms of the teleological argument -- is that an unfair characterization, in your view? — Moliere

firstly, i am a theist, but not a proponent of FTA as an argument for the existence of God, because it is in conflict with skeptical theism - that said.

The allure of FTA to many theists, is the fractal basis of the conditions are derived from, and therefor consistent with science. This has an obvious advantage for theist who are used to having to argue outside of science

Yea that is not my understanding of the argument. My understanding is

1. We exist
2. The set of conditions that allow us to exist are incredibly precise and incredibly unlikely -

What are the probabilities that this situation is be design, chance, other. Which is more likely.

for a way better explanation see this:

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/FINETLAY.HTM

i think this is the best layperson explanation of the argument - for those interested.

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/FINETLAY.HTM

any thoughts on this ??

You walk in and find me sitting at a desk with a deck of cards in front of me.
You pick up the cards and begin turning them over, and see they are in order ace, 2,3 etc and according to suit.

I give you 3 possible explanations and ask you which is most probable:

1. I have spent the last 15 minutes putting them in order
2. I have just finished shuffling them and that is the order it ended in
3. there are an infinite number of other me's and you's and desks and decks of cards
and in that infinite set, there is one deck that randomly is in order, and that is
the one we happen to be conscience of.

Sure, but the burden is on the FTA proponent to make the case and refute all objections. — Relativist

there is no truth claim being made by the FTA, just an assignment on one's belief on the relative probabilities of differing hypothesis on some observed data. There is no more need for the theist to support his belief in a designer than the atheist/agnostic need to support their belief in randomness or other non designer alternatives.

seven story mountain - Thomas Merton

You're reversing the burden of proof. The FTA purports to show God's existence is likely. It fails to do that. It's failure has no bearing on whether or not God exists, and I've made no claim that it does. — Relativist

You statement "it fails to do that" needs an IMO in front of it.

also there is no difference in God as a designer or multi universe as far an evidence. Neither is a matter of fact, both are reasonable answers. What I find interesting is those who support the multi universe often do not appreciate that all they are doing is elevating science to a religion.

They prefer that hypothesis simply as a matter of faith. There really is no difference in believing the multi-universe as a matter of faith in science, or believing in God as designer as a matter of theistic faith.

Your point on a theistic bias is exactly the same thing as those with a scientific bias.

Let me update the deck of cards thought experiment and look forward to your response:

You walk in and find me sitting at a desk with a deck of cards in front of me.
You pick up the cards and begin turning them over, and see they are in order ace, 2,3 etc and according to suit.

I give you 3 possible explanations and ask you which is most probable:

1. I have spent the last 15 minutes putting them in order
2. I have just finished shuffling them and that is the order it ended in
3. there are an infinite number of other me's and you's and desks and decks of cards
and in that infinite set, there is one deck that randomly is in order, and that is
the one we happen to be conscience of.

It reflects bias to dismiss one possibility due to lack of evidence, while embracing another that also lacks evidence. So it would be poor reasoning for an atheist to claim there must be a multiverse, and equally unreasonable to claim it must be God. We should therefore agree that both are possible, as far as we know. Right? — Relativist

I think you are missing the main concept of FTA. It is not a proof, and does not present any evidence in support of any particular hypothesis. The only facts in it are the observations. We exist, these are the physical conditions that allow us to exist. It is just a question of does that system of events is designed is more or less probable than they were random, or some other explanation.

disagree with your logic. Here is your scenario in FTA terms. I exist. What is the more likely reason for that observation. that my parents and grandparents did also exist, meet, etc. Or the stork brought me.

Secondly, for the purposes of FTA it is unimportant if you say we exist because of all these incredibly specific criteria. Or because of all these incredibly specific criteria we exist.

Again, FTA is not an argument that is a proof God exists. It is just taking verifiable observations, and testing those observations against possible hypothesis, and making a judgment on which you find more likely.

It actually doesn't work as a theistic prof, because it is inconsistent with sceptical theism. As a theist, I only like it because it shows a bias in atheism of discounting any argument that shows God as a possible answer, solely on a faith based belief that God does not exist. It is a juxtaposition I enjoy.

The FTA is a probability argument that says what is more likely. For life as we know it to exist the odds of all the requirements happening as the did is astronomical on the orde of 52! For a cool explanation on how big that is go here.

https://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html

So here is the comparable thought experiment. You come into my house and see me sitting at a table with a deck of cards in front of me. You pick up the cards and begin to turn them over, and they are in order. Ace,2,3 etc all by suit. I give you 2 options of how that happened.

Option 1. I spent the last 10 minutes actively putting them in that order.

Option 2. I randomly shuffled the deck, and they ended that way.

I ask you decide which is a more likely event.

Sarah Sanders herself would be proud of your non-answer.

You had no issue with the way he performed at the news conference in Helsinki?

No issue that the Congress and Senate of the US have no clue what Trump said in private to Putin? And from appearances, neither does his own Secretary of State ?

I admit it is very unlikely, but I think a conservative could challenge for the nomination, with a story that goes something like - I can provide results based on republican principals, but do it with character.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, establishing a conservative court. That will remove the main issue from the religious right to support Trump. The right candidate could attract this group playing to Trumps lack of morals. If you can combine that with losing some conservative women for the same reason. Could be a base there to build on if you can make enough Trump supporters believe you can get some or the same results without the lack of character.

Right now Trump is selling hope and fear. I think it is possible for another Republican to challenge him effectively on the hope, and just leave him with the fear.

The Right To Free Speech is the Right To Lie
The Right To Bear Arms is the Right To Kill
The Right To Freedom is the Right To Oppress Others
The Right To Property is the Right To Theft
The Right To Freedom of Worship is the Right To Idolatry — Agustino

But you are still morally and legally responsible for the consequences of your free choice to lie, kill, oppress, steal. The rules of acceptable human conduct society, in general, has codified into their laws is quite consistent with the Decalogue.

You mean an actual Conservative that holds truth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in high regard? Not a chance. — Benkei

Condoleezza Rice ??

Real issue with Trump is the advent of a moral relativism in his supporters, and his continual assault of the truth.

Just yesterday at a the VFW convention Trump said. "Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening." - I find that an amazing quote. almost equal to just 3 weeks into the administration when he tweeted "any negative polls are fake news"

The continual barrage of lies are now routinely excused along the lines that Americans shouldn't worry about what Trump says but instead watch what he does. This requires buying into the moral relativism at the heart of Trump's deny, distract, deflect and divide rhetorical strategy.

The last and laziest defense is the whatabout-ism, Or an argument that says a fact-based debate itself is divisive.

In other words, the test of loyalty is not only to lie for the regime but to convince oneself to believe the lies, or at least to dismiss any meaningful difference between truth and lies. And that's where the real danger with the hyper-partisan defense of Trump is emerging. It ends up endorsing the idea that truth doesn't matter and that a president's litany of lies should not be over-indexed or seen as destructive to our democracy. In sum, "get over it -- our guy won." In this world view, power and nationalism provide their own imperatives.

When will his supporters awake to the fact that truth does matter, it is not relative. Democracy depends on facts made available to citizens in a self-governing society.

His supporters are the only ones who can stop this slide into an Orwellian acceptance of the party. It will be up to the core of the republican party to begin holding Trump accountable for his lies and actions. Cries from the opposition or MSM will just continue to be discounted and dismissed until the core Republicans awake to the idea they are making a deal with the devil - that can endanger the very core of our american democracy.

Maybe it is too much to ask for, but we need a moral leader to emerge in the GOP, someone who has a deep concern for our democratic process, and will take on the task of holding Trump accountable.

We seem to value personality more than character.

As with many arguments it is often unclear what the conclusion is. Most often the fine tuning argument is portrayed as a set of incredibly coincidental factors that needed to be almost precisely as they are to support life, with the conclusion stating therefor it was designed as such, and therefor there is a designer.

But I think that is a misrepresentation of the real conclusion. The real conclusion is a probability question. It is, what is more likely, that this is by some design, and there is a designer, or are other explanations that are more likely. The 2 most given ones are, yes it is all just an accident. Or there are multi universes, maybe an infinite number of alternative universes and it is therefor more likely one would be like this one.

As a theist, I like this argument - not so much for its support of theism, but to show the length some will go to find any answer other than it is more likely there is a designer. In general to the atheist, or hard agnostic there is almost nothing that is less likely than God is.

This is long - but does a very good job of presenting the argument from a theist POV if anyone wants to take the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6qWzxKVBko

Just read this in a short article in the National Review of the Cohen taped conversation:

"Do the tapes suggest that Trump knew about efforts to buy the rights to women alleging extramarital affairs with him, and prevent those allegations from being revealed to the public? Sure. But how many of us were buying Trump’s denials on that?

How many of us were buying Trump’s denials of the affairs?"

Where was I, and when did it happen that we so easily accept and even expect such blatant lies from the President of the United Sates. To be clear, it is not the lie that has me as concerned as the apparent indifference to it from so many.

In the service there is an expression that goes " you get what you inspect" - If we have lost our outrage at getting so blatantly lied to, and it has morphed into some tacit acceptance, that is a sad state of affairs.

Sure, ...and that's also why some people conclude a 3-omni God doesn't exist. If there is such a God then there are compensating gods, but IF there are no compensating goods, then such a God cannot exist — Relativist

agree and agree there are reasonable cases for both. I find the theist arguments more compelling, others find the atheistic arguments more compelling - both are reasonable positions.

In the end we will know - it either ends with God or big black hole, all things in the fullness of time.

Why did he choose to make us suffer? — Relativist

and as above - the theist answer remains, compensating goods or morally justifiable reasons. Which is why this issue always inevitably spirals to this point and has for many many years. And in all likelihood will remain as such for many more - but it is an interesting take on the argument from evil - to allow for God to exist, just not be benevolent.

1. Logical contradictions do not exist.
2. If x exists then x is not a logical contradiction (converse of 1)
3. Omnipotence entails the ability to directly create any contingent entity whose existence is logically possible.
4. There exist contingent free-willed souls in heaven who do not sin (e.g. the departed souls of faithful Christians). (Christian doctrine).
5. Therefore God's omnipotence entails the ability to directly create free-willed beings that do not sin.
6. Therefore God could have created a world of free-willed beings who do not sin
7. In this world, evil befalls the innocent due to the sinful acts of free-willed individuals
8. God created this world instead of a world of free willed beings that do not sin.
9. Therefore God chose a world with needless pain and suffering.
10. Therefore God is not omnibenevolent. — Relativist

On P4. Your proposition is assuming there is evil in heaven that the free willed beings in heaven would be free to chose if they desired, but don't because of their nature created by God. I do not think it is a valid assumption that there is evil in heaven. Or at least a case need to be made for it.

Without that, the logic of your conclusion (10) fails. It is not contradictory that God could have created 2 separate states of affairs, one we are aware of, and one we are not aware of in heaven. With beings of free will in both. One with an absence of evil. One with evil. And God's benevolence would once again be depended on if there are compensating goods, or morally acceptable reason for the evil that exists in the state of affairs we know.

I do not see how any anti theistic argument can be depended on a particular state of affairs in heaven

↪Dfpolis
According to Romans 6:7: " anyone who has died has been set free from sin"

Do you agree this means that the souls in heaven do not sin? Don't they have free will, or does God remove our free will when we die?

My point is that this suggests there can exist free willed beings who do not sin, despite your claims to the contrary. — Relativist

Not sure I have ever seen an argument that depends on a state of affairs in heaven, as a defense for the argument from evil, Seems like a proposition in conflict with the conclusion to me.


To the point I would make the following argument.

There are two states of affairs we can identify as good and evil. In order for free will to exist in beings like us, both states must be an available choice. If beings like us were created with an inability to chose evil, there would be no option and no choice, and no free will.

Then the major question left, is free will, as opposed to no free will, a compensating good for the free choices of evil it allows?

that was not an attempt at a straw man, it was an attempt at identifying the concept we seem to be missing each other on.

Your assertion that because you are not aware of any compensating goods, therefore there are none. Is not a fact, it is something you believe to be true, by reason. Which, I acknowledge is ok, and reasonable. However, so is my position that, there may well be compensating goods even if you are unaware of them.

maybe it would help if I format your point as I see it.

Set up:

(the traditional argument of evil) - Evil exists, If God was all good, all seeing, and all powerful He would see the evil, be motivated to stop it, and have the power to do so. However - evil exist therefor God does not.

( the traditional theist response) - For evil and an all good, all powerful, all seeing God to co-exist there must be compensating goods, or morally justifiable reasons why God allows the evils to exist.

Your argument:

P1. We are not aware of any compensating goods or morally justifiable reasons for the Black Death.

P2. If there were compensating goods for the Black Death we would be aware of them, and recognize them as such.

Conclusion - there are no compensating goods or morally justifiable reasons for the Black death.

My challenge is to your implied P2. and therefor your conclusion. I am not arguing P1

I have never watched a rally, I have seen some of the sound bites is all. Do they broadcast these things in full?

The belief "there is no evidence" is justified by the fact that I am aware of no evidence. Similarly, take any ad hoc possibility X: I am aware of no evidence for X, and that is sufficient to believe there is no X. — Relativist

You are more than free to believe by reason that there is no compensating good from the black death, because you do not see any compelling evidence that there is one,

That is a very different statement than you made earlier.

There is no evidence of an offsetting good to the evil of the black death, so why believe there is an offsetting good — Relativist

This statement proposes as a matter of fact that there is NO evidence. Again just because you do not see any evidence, does not make it a fact that there is no evidence.

Well, it's functionally subservient from the United States standpoint. That ethic is preserving the United States self-interest... Trump represents the United States. From that standpoint Germany is subservient to the competing ethic of Russia.
From Germany's standpoint I do agree it's an alignment of apparent mutual self interest, that's just a different conversation. Trump doesn't have to represent Germany.
I suppose he is obligated to represent the world at large, and so is Germany...
People are subservient to their desires and desires can wreck havoc on an individual. Germany could slip out of political alignment with the EU, the EU could fall apart and Europe could land in chaos which could ultimately be detrimental to Germany. From that perspective and from the prevailing pseudo-morals against dictators Germany will become subservient to Russia... yes — ibrust

Thanks, I have no idea what that all means. But I think we have exhausted our points. Well at least I have.

There is nothing derogatory in saying that Germany gets gas from Russia and is thus economically dependent on Russia and functionally subservient to them. — ibrust

we are wandering off the only point i was making. You stated, as some matter of fact, that the simple act of Germany buying natural gas from Russia would make them subservient to them. After our brief discussion do you still consider that to be true?

We are clearly serving the interests of Saudi Arabia in the middle east — ibrust

I would say we were clearly serving our own interests. If others, such as the Saudi Royal family, also benefited that was collateral and coincidental.