I'm tempted to encourage Trump supporters to attend anti-social distancing protests. The bigger, and more tightly packed, the better.

Do any of you remember the Iraqi Information Minister (AKA "Baghdad Bob")? During the Iraq War, he would give daily briefing that were totally divorced from the facts. For example:

When US forces were in Bagdad, he said, "They're not even within 100 miles of Baghdad. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

After the US forces captured the airport, he announced, "Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed." and later: "We have retaken the airport. There are no Americans there. I will take you there and show you. In one hour."

And this particularly memorable quote:"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"

Remind you of anyone?

I agree.

He has operated according to federalist principles: supporting the states in their efforts, providing funds and assets where needed. — NOS4A2

He was not supporting the states when he said it was entirely their responsibility to obtain ventilators they felt they needed. He later complained that some governors were asking for too many. It's not because anyone's stupid, it's because everyone's on their own in trying to figure out how to estimate their needs. The smart thing would have been to take on a coordination role as early as possible. The only thing he's done consistently from the beginning is to cast blame) and claim credit. At a time when strong, effective leadership is needed, he makes it about him.

I think you’re probably right on that. A federalist government does not serve us well in this pandemic. All the more reason why we should not depend on the federal government and expect more from our state governments. — NOS4A2

That sounds contradictory. I suggest that the lesson is that a dogmatic view of federalism is problematic. It may be best in some cases to leave things to the state, but this demonstrates there are other cases when it is not.

He has operated according to federalist principles: supporting the states in their efforts, providing funds and assets where needed. — NOS4A2

Trump claims that he has absolute authority over Governors. How is that consistent with federalist principles?

Federalism does not serve us well in this pandemic. Consider the ventilator problem: if each state is on its own, this creates two problems: 1) the states compete with each other for a scarce resource, ensuring winners and losers, and driving up the price.2) each state has to manage for its own peak needs. Add together 50 peak requirements is bound to be considerably higher than the national peak, because the peaks will not be concurrent.

Divine creation is not consistent with methodological naturalism. That hypothesis can only be entertained with a metaphysical scope.
— Relativist
I did not state or imply otherwise. Methodological naturalism can only go so far, which is one reason why it is a mistake to convert it to metaphysical naturalism. — aletheist

You brought up supernaturalism when you said divine creation avoids an infinite regress. That enlarged the scope of analysis to metaphysics. If we're entertaing metaphysical solutions to an infinite regress, then we can also consider solutions consistent with metaphysical naturalism. Right?

Trump has announced that he will withhold funding for WHO, because they're to blame for the pandemic's spread to the US.

I have no doubt that WHO's processes could have been better - maybe much better. But the appropriate thing to do is to learn from the mistakes, and develop processes to avoid repeating them. Every government entity in the US (federal, state, and local) and in the world should do the same thing.

In any case, whether we are talking about science or philosophy, it is a truism that nothing of any substance can be explained away without residue. — SophistiCat

Apologists claim that God's metaphysical necessity subsumes the residue. Of course, this doesn't explain his contingent choices.

Possibility leaves the door open for correction and reformation. — Possibility

I'm fine with that.

OMG, what an f-ing moron!:

“For the purpose of creating conflict and confusion, some in the Fake News Media are saying that it is the Governors decision to open up the states, not that of the President of the United States & the Federal Government. Let it be fully understood that this is incorrect....” Mr Trump wrote on Twitter. “...It is the decision of the President, and for many good reasons.”

That is appropriate for scientific inquiry, but metaphysical naturalism entails some sort of brute fact foundation for what exists.
— Relativist
Scientific inquiry employs methodological naturalism, but it is a mistake to convert this to metaphysical naturalism.

Otherwise there's an infinite regress.
— Relativist
On the contrary, divine creation is an example of an explanatory hypothesis that avoids an infinite regress. — aletheist

Divine creation is not consistent with methodological naturalism. That hypothesis can only be entertained with a metaphysical scope.

The spirit of scientific inquiry should preclude us from ever simply accepting something as a brute fact. — aletheist

That is appropriate for scientific inquiry, but metaphysical naturalism entails some sort of brute fact foundation for what exists. Otherwise there's an infinite regress.

, it would be an assumption that laws hold for all time and in all places, rather than holding where and when we know they hold. — Coben

By that reasoning, we shouldn't consider there to be laws of nature at all. That makes no sense. Physics develops theories about laws based on empirical evidence - the laws explain observed regularities.

So we infer a law based on observed regularities, then you say we should assume these aren't really regularities. See the problem?

It's a paradigmatic assumption. I am not blaming scientists for having gone with it. We work from local to more distant time and place. But that assumption that these things do not change is not parsimonious since one need not make that assumption and one can still use all the, for example, mathematical models that work now and seem to have been in place for a while. It's not less parsimonious NOT to make that assumption. Less assumptions cannot be less parsimonious. — Coben

Parsimony entails explaining the available facts with the fewest assumptions, not with entertaing the possibility we are missing some facts.

That said, it is reasonable to seek scientific explanation for why the constants have their values. Scientists should not accept brute facts.

The issue with the constants straddles the line between physics and metaphysics.

Perhaps the values of the constants are set by natural law. If not, their values are brute fact. The FTA treats them as brute facts that could have differed.

I regard it as an innate, incorrigible believe that is unanalyzable in terms of a priori principles. In short: it a basic belief, a foundation for every other belief. The "certainty" is nothing more than the incorrigibility.
— Relativist

I recognise that at some point we feel compelled to draw a line to protect the integrity of the system. Something must be incorrigible, but that something is not necessarily — Possibility

"Incorrigible= not able to be corrected or reformed. That applies here. This is not an arbitrary assumption we pull out of thin air. No one has to be talked into it. Perhaps you've talked yourself out of it, but the only basis seems to be that it's possibly wrong. Possibility is not a defeater of belief. If you treat it as such, then you can have no beliefs other than analytic trurhs.

Cool. Thanks!

Not sure that it implies that anything requires an explanation? Heavy metals are "rare" due to the way that they are formed (with respect to the rest of the cosmos) and likewise fulfill the rare functions that they fulfill because of their "ontological matrix". — Pantagruel

Humans are likewise rare for the same reason. But one could make a fine tuning argument that the fundamental constants must have been finely tuned so that X would be produced, because X is otherwise very improbable. (for X=heavy metals or humans).

Nevertheless, this is different than the case of Mary. There must be some explanation why she would live rather than die.

I think assuming teleology is unwarranted, but also perhaps unnecessary. A carbon atom is no more mysterious than a hydrogen atom, but opens up a whole universe of new possibilities.

I agree.

What is it that you refer to as ‘I’? What information are you basing that ‘certainty’ on? And how are you certain of that information? — Possibility

I regard it as an innate, incorrigible believe that is unanalyzable in terms of a priori principles. In short: it a basic belief, a foundation for every other belief. The "certainty" is nothing more than the incorrigibility.

Because we can trace evidence of informing interaction back as far as the Big Bang. — Possibility

No one was being informed at the time of the bog bang. There is no ontological connection to our epistemic inferences about the big bang.

Is there no contradiction? We're more or less opposed in our views; let's suppose we contradict each other. Does it make sense then there could be someone who supports both of us? — TheMadFool

And still be rational? Not if the contradiction is truly present.

Aren't you implying that the existence of heavy metals doesn't require an explanation for their existence, and therefore neither does life? Arguing with analogies (which I often do) always leaves an escape hatch: simply identifying what's different between the two cases.

So, although I agree with you about this, I revised my Op to remove that escape hatch. I provide a general basis for rejecting the premise that there is an explanatory gap for either heavy metals OR life.

Not only that, but scientists generally assume that the laws of nature as we observe them operating today have always operated that way; or at least, that they have operated that way ever since very soon after the alleged Big Bang. What justifies this assumption? Why not consider the alternative that the laws of nature have evolved over time, and perhaps are still (very slowly) evolving? What would count as evidence either way? — aletheist

That's of course possible, but what's the motivation to propose that? It seems to me the motivation is the premise that our improbable existence entails an explanatory gap that must be filled. The purpose of my Op was to dispute that, and I revised it yesterday to identify a principle that distinguishes between cases where explanations are required, and where they are not.

The real context here is not theist vs. non-theist, but one group of physicists (and not a group of theists) arguing with others. FT came out of non-theist physicist concerns that the chance of a universe right for life seemed so radically small it bothered them. Right or wrong it seriously bothered a group of non-theist physicists. And it bothered other physicists enough to try to find a rebuttal, some of these along with some of the first group thinking that a multiverse offered an elegant solution. Later theists heard about FT and used it also. — Coben

That's a reasonable description, but I submit the source of the problem was the perceived explanatory gap that I rebutted in my Op: the premise that life should be "expected". That premise is not derived from Physics. The false premise has been characterized and rebutted in a variety of ways, but I haven't seen it rebutted in terms of an epistemological principle as I did in my (revised) op.

Which was an aristotilian deity, outside the chain of being and some sort of pure intellect. I don't think we need either the implied dualism or this kind of pure intellect. Perhaps we do, perhaps it would entail a separate creator, but I can't see how this could be demonstrated. (given my own beliefs, which are theist, I don't have a problem with the conclusion, I just think whatever the argument would be speculative and likely carry assumptions out of our everyday lives into cosmological issues.) I don't think Hawking's cosmology which is FT based is theistic or even deistic. (though I will concede in advance I am not sure I truly get it. But I see no diety in there.) — Coben

I believe the Aristotelian deity entails a first cause, so it wouldn't be outside the chain of being. This at least was Flew's interpretation, and I believe this is what is entailed by the FTA if it is true.

I'm glad to have a theist respond to this thread. Tell me if you embrace the claim that the improbability of our existence entails an explanatory gap. Some versions of the FTA depend on there being such an explanatory gap. My Op was intended to falsify this claim.

[

We can be certain only that ‘something’ exists, and that ‘something’ is aware of existence. All other information or intelligence attempts to build on this basic certainty, as what matters. — Possibility

I'm certain I exist, and I'm aware of my existence. However, I'm also certain the universe was around before me to be aware of it. What makes you think there was awareness 5 seconds after the big bang?

might not even entail a creator, just some kind of universal desire for life. — Coben

That's a minimal definition of a creator: having a desire, and the ability to act on that desire. This is the sort of deism Antony Flew ultimately embraced.

I'd like to get back to the issue I raised in the Op, because I think I have a solution.

Intuitively, Mary's luck needs to be explained, but John's luck doesn't. Can we make sense of this intuition? I'd like to propose what the relevant difference is.

In Mary's case, there were two possibilities: either she would live (be lucky) or die (be unlucky). We need to explain why she fell on the side of the dichotomy that she did. Similarly for the unlucky who died.

In John's case, there is no such dichotomy. A non-existent John isn't unlucky, because luck (whether good or bad) applies only to things that exist.

So I propose the relevant difference is this dichotomy. A person 's good luck only needs to be explained if he could have had bad luck.

I agree that an objective may imply a prior intelligence, but an underlying creative impetus does not - and neither does it imply ‘luck’, despite the unlikely arrangement of conditions. This is the point I’d like to make. — Possibility

Please explain what you mean by a "creative impetus." What are it's identifiable characteristics?

hypothetically speaking, Croatians are killing each other negates the very generous offer of assistance from an interested party. God fine-tuned the universe for life only so that life could devise ingenious ways of snuffing itself out. Intriguing! — TheMadFool

You're assuming too much. The FTA, if it were successful, would only entail a creator who wanted life. It does not entail a creator who gives a damn what they do to each other.

Not so much an objective as an impetus, but why not think that? — Possibility

Because there can only be an objective if an intelligence is behind it. I'm open to this possibility, but the case mist be made. The FTA purports to make such a case, but obviously if it depends on the assumption of an intelligence the argument is circular.

America Croatia first.

That's the problem in my opinion. Suppose the fine-tuned physical parameters for life are like a set of conditions imposed on a group of people. If these conditions didn't favor any one member of the group wouldn't it be the heights of foolishness to say the conditions favored the group as a whole. The exact logic applies the the fine tuning argument. — TheMadFool

I don't follow. One can favor Croations without favoring individual Croations.

I think the real hidden value that should be questioned here is why life is considered so different than other physical processes. — schopenhauer1

Yes, and that's related to my Op. Consider the enormous (infinite?) number of possible things that would exist if other universes had existed instead of ours. Each type of thing had the same, infinitesmal chance of coming into being. Consider the odds against YOU coming to be, vs the enormous number of possible people that weren't so "lucky".

Well, it seems the FTA has a flaw. It claims that the universe is fine tuned for life as a whole but that would mean the universe was fine tuned for microbial pathogens as well as humans but these two examples of life are counterexamples of the universe being fine tuned for either. I mean microbial pathogens shouldn't exist if the universe were fine tuned for humans and humans shouldn't exist, with their antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals and all, if the universe were fine tuned for microbes.

Since all life maybe reduced to such mutually harmful relationships, I would think twice before suggesting any fine tuning for life. Perhaps it has an evilish entertainment value as a paradox: the universe is fine tuned for life but not fine tuned for the living. — TheMadFool

The claim is not that the universe is tuned for each specific type of life - that entails a complex set of objectives. It's just the broad claim that it seems "tuned" for life - because no kinds of life would be possible had the constants had different values.

There is no reason to assume that life as we know it was the specific target. The creative process itself is open-ended, and not so much an application of power and influence from ‘above’ towards a specific design objective, but rather an interaction aimed at whatever increases awareness, connection and collaboration overall. It’s initially an unselfish and undirected process, exploring possibility and potential within material limitations. — Possibility

You seem to be claiming there was an objective to "increase awareness, connection, and collaberation." Why think that?

↪ Who says life can't adopt as many different forms as existent universes? Maybe life can exist in many possible universes. The "laws" of physics are based on models of our universe, not every possible universe. — Enrique

I understand, but here's their perspective: the textbook laws of physics are our best guess at the actual laws of nature, so they are a reasonable basis for analysis.

Why the obsession with life? So what if life is only possible in this universe? How is that a problem?

Proponents of the modern fine tuning argument accept that life in this universe is fully explainable. What they argue is that life-permitting universes should not be expected. This is because there are fundamental constants in the laws of physics (like the cosmological constant, the mass of the Higgs boson, the gravitational constant...) that appear to be "fine-tuned" for life: had any of these constants differed by even a small amount, such things as chemistry would not be possible (there would not exist atoms that could form chemical bonds). They argue that these constants are finely tuned to allow life.

As I just mentioned to Sophisticat, this assumes life was a target - a design objective.

There has been a lot of discussion along these lines. John Leslie offered a now well-known firing squad analogy: You face a firing squad of trained marksmen. Shots are fired, but to your immense surprise, you find that they all missed. Are you justified in inferring that the marksmen intended to miss? Leslie argues that a similar scenario in the case of the universe's fundamental constants suggests two alternative explanations: God or multiple universes. Objections have been put forward in terms of gambler's fallacy and observation selection effect, among others. You can find many such debates under the heading of anthropic reasoning (see also SEP entry on fine-tuning). Although I believe that the considerations that I gave above preempt any such debates with respect to the universe as a whole, I still think that they are instructive. — SophistiCat

One of my hobbies (or obsessions) is to debate theists on their Fine Tuning Argument for God (here's my current one - I'm called, "Fred"). I've read a number of papers, including the SEP article, and I've read debates and seen videos where its defended. I have observed that the most common rebuttal to it is the multiverse hypothesis. I don't think that's the best approach because it concedes too much - in particular, it concedes that life needs to be explained.

Awhile back, someone on this forum posted a link to this paper: The Fine Tuning Argument. The author (Klaas Landsman) argues that the existence of life is not a good reason to infer either a designer OR a multiverse. My reasoning is based on that paper, so have a look if you're interested.

Consider the firing squad you mention. The shooters have a target. Why should we treat life as a target? Here's an outline of my reasoning:

1. There are many possible universes with a different set of values for the fundamental constants
2. Each possible universe has the same low probability of existing
3. Therefore there’s nothing remarkable about any specific universe existing (i.e. the universe is a lottery winner: someone was going to win despite every ticket holder having a low probability of winning - all had the same chance).
4. The winning universe happens to support life, but every universe begets consequences that would not obtain in the others so that has no relevant implications.

Are Americans really this stupid? — VagabondSpectre

I've never understood how people can be so confident that their opinions are true, that it implies all contrary opinions are the product of stupidity.

Such arrogance.

Agreed, but can you identify a relavent contradiction?