This is what happens when philosophical literalists meddle with religion and try to organise it. Zen Buddhists are smart enough to head them off at the pass with the soundless sound of one hand clapping.

Personally, I believe in love and justice though I am confident they do not exist. So call me irrational, and snort in derision. — unenlightened

Agree - the trinity is a matter of faith. Faith, other than reasons for its existence are not matters of philosophy. There are no rational arguments for or against faith. The only question should be, is what I believe by faith in conflict with truth or reason.

In this case, the base question is, as it so often is, is belief in God reasonable. If so, and your answer is yes, than by faith there is no reason not to believe in His trinity.

This has been refuted a few times by different people. — Blue Lux

The ontological argument has valid arguments against, but to my knowledge has not been refuted

I do agree the op is a restatement of the ontological argument. Still believe the only valid argument against the argument from evil is compensating goods, free will as the compensating good as the evil done by people, and skeptical theism for natural evils.

The bulk of total tax revenues comes from individuals, although I could not find a per capita figure, comparing the average tax revenue per corporation versus the average individual revenue. My point being that I expect that in raw dollars, the average corporation pays taxes greatly exceeding the average citizen, meaning they are paying for more of our roads and whatever else. — Hanover

The government could burn every tax dollar it gets, and still buy anything it wants with a key stroke. Economically, the only real purpose of taxes in a country with a fiat currency, and the good faith of debt holders, is purely to control inflation. It has a million other political reasons, none of them that matter - other than to get votes.

Economically, taxes should have no impact at all on corporate performance, investment, employment, etc. If all competitors in a market are taxed fairly it is just a base that the market operates on top of. Success or failure of any competitor is indifferent to an equal tax to all.

I don't think it is possible to communicate in words in anyway the experience or sticking your hand in a fire. And while no issue that relative words like pain or hot would apply to all. IMO they would be woefully short of expressing the real experience. And while in some very general way two people sticking their hands in a fire would have similar experiences, I hold to proposition each experience would be unique to the individual.

This is not an insignificant difference. This awareness of the experience as removed from the abstraction of descriptions of experience.

How do you know this is the case? — Ciceronianus the White

because i can see no possible way they could be identical. Could you? All the variables of my particular keyboard, the methods or way I type, the temperature in the room, how I process the sensations from my fingers, etc etc. My level of certainty is very very high these were not identical events.

If you're correct, in what sense is it significant — Ciceronianus the White

That is the million dollar question. Did you feel positive quality while you typed? Where you in the moment ? What did you get out of the experience? Are you better for the experience, am I ?

Do you think that if you told me you were typing or had typed something, I wouldn't understand what you said in any respect? — Ciceronianus the White

I think any explanation I gave you of the experience is different than the experience. It is not the experience, it is an abstraction. That is kind of the point. True experience only lives in the knife edge of time between past and future. Everything else is an abstraction, including my attempt of a description of it.

I just typed this. In what sense is my experience typing these words unique, compared to your experience in typing the foregoing? — Ciceronianus the White

i didn't have the exact same tactile feel on my keyboard that you did, we had a different and individual sense of our purpose. Inform, impress, selfish, educate, kill some time. We each felt something unique as we typed.

think the famous black and white room thought experiment. You can intellectually understand color, what wave lengths are, how are eyes and brains process light. But you still only know color when you experience it. Until then it is only an abstraction. You and I can stand in the same place and look at the same sunset, and we will have 2 unique experiences.

Of course our experiences will differ is some respects, and some of us may be significantly different from the norm. Some climates in which we live are significantly different from others, cultures are different. — Ciceronianus the White

i think all experiences are unique to the person experiencing them - by definition. Any attempt to communicate an experience is an abstraction, a construct of the mind, and not the same as the experience. The experience is that knife edge between history and future, a Qualia you will. Or from another thread - Quality.

We are alone in our experiences, but that is different than being lonely.

In Zen and the art. Quality is a philosophy. An attempt to link the objective and subjective worlds. A truth without category.

But as he now has a large constituency of supporters who will believe anything he says, notwithstanding the abundant documentation of Trump's lies and un-truths, then these people are ready to believe that the whole 'Russia thing' is really a sinister DNC plot. And they'll stand and applaud his stump speeches, and turn out and vote for him again and again. — Wayfarer

As someone with some faith in the collective wisdom of the American people how does this happen. Is it just tribal, have we chosen sides, right or wrong? Is this some racial backlash over a black president. Is it fear. Anger? I don’t understand this collective acceptance of such a lack of character

politics aside, I continue to be fascinated about how different people can view the same thing, and have such passionately different conclusions.

The best example I can remember is the verdict in the OJ trail. Such a sharp divide on that.

and in fairness. Our President does a very good job of tossing out accusations as well, and that with the weight of the office of the Presidency of the US behind them.

thanks your answers. Very interested in how the loyal Trump supporters view things like this. Is there a line somewhere, is there some action, some lie, some breach of character that you think would change the view of him in supporters like yourself.

There was always the option of not taking the meeting with Russian nationals to see what dirt they have on your opponent, and then report them to the FBI to investigate. As a method of avoiding bad optics prior to election.

IMO there is a difference between a married man lying about an affair, and the President of the US lying about members of his staff meeting with a foreign national. I can understand the motivation for the former, and the relatively little it has to do with governing the nation, not the same thing on the latter.

At some point, I hope, we as a nation get back to the point where character matters. I have a deep concern that this continual willingness to accept the lack of character in the POTUS, is sending a very poor message to the young people of this country.

Just a quick question - doesn't the large chain of now completely verifiable lies about the Trump Tower meeting give you any pause? I mean they went from complete denial the meeting happened, to it was with a lawyer about adoptions, to it was 4 others with some ambiguous chat - than back to adoption, to NYT breaking emails, beat to the punch by DJT that it was about getting dirt, to 5 people, to 6 people, to 7 people etc. on and on.

there were many many chances along the way from late 2016 to just tell the truth. Does it not bother you that the President, his son, and his staff, continually and badly lied about this meeting?

3. The FTA is not an argumentum signum quia. As such, it is not a sound deductive argument, or even a hypothetical argument. It is merely a persuasive case. — Dfpolis

This seems a difficult concept for many to get their hands around, not sure why.

My point is very easy to argue against. Show me another complex system where you believe chance was more probable than design, and I will readily admit I was in error.

Secondly, I do not understand the angst. Believing that a supernatural designer does not exist is completely reasonable. The atheist position that FTA is false because the probability of a supernatural designer is 0, or the strong agnostic position that it is very near zero therefore it is something else is a completely reasonable position.

I'm sure you'll understand why nobody would take such a proposition seriously. I'm guessing that's not exactly what you meant. Perhaps you can restate it if that's the case, so we can understand what it did mean. — andrewk

Is this better -

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-How-to-Rigorously-Define-Fine-Tuning.pdf

If it could not have been otherwise, then there's no need to posit that someone made it that way. It's just the way things are — Moliere

My point is, if the gravitational constant could only be what it is, and the weak force could only be what it is, and the strong force could only be what its, and on and on for a bunch of other constraints could only be what they are. And if any of those was even marginally different. Life could not exist. That sure sounds like they were designed for that purpose to me. I see no difference is saying things are as the are because they were designed as such , or there was no other alternatives. You are just moving the question up one level - why are there no other alternatives.

If the possible domain for the gravity constant is only one card, then it is a 100 percent probability that we'd draw that card -- it'd just be a constant, as I've been saying, and evaluating its probability wouldn't mean anything at all.

But if it could be otherwise, then what else could it be? If it can't be otherwise, then there is nothing improbable about the gravity constant being what it is. — Moliere

The thought experiment using the deck of cards, is firstly about the order of the deck of cards. When one observes something that seems ordered, and given options as to how such order came to happen between design and randomness most would view design more likely. FTA proposes the that the universe is ordered for embodied, sentient beings like us to exist. Even vary minor differences in many different criteria ( all of these are easily looked up) would make it impossible for beings like us to exist.
When facing such an ordered system FTA proposed design and the most probable hypothesis as to why.

I am not sure what the difference is between your point that there may have been no other options for all these varied criteria than there is than, it was designed. Sounds like a round about way of saying the same thing.

Should we do away with all thought experiments as a tools to explain anything since they are not identical ?

Take Rank Amateur's favorite card deck analogy, for example. It is just the kind of toy example where Bayesian analyses (which Collins favors) shine. And it is instructive to consider. I won't bore you with formulas (which are elementary, anyway), but the idea here is that the canonical ordering of cards in a deck is far more likely to be the result of a deliberate action (whether because it was just removed from its factory packaging or because someone deliberately arranged it in order) than of a random shuffling. But we know this because we know something about decks of cards, how they are labeled and handled, and about people and their habits and preferences. We have some rational expectations, or priors, in Bayesian lingo, which are based on our experiences of the world. — SophistiCat

This is exactly the point I have been trying to make. If one believes in the possibility of a supernatural designer. A true agnostic ( not so sure there are any) or a theist. They view FTA exactly as you view above. If however, one believes the probability of a supernatural designer to be near zero, you have to leave the logic of the answer as above, and develop some challenge of the best existing science that FTA uses as the base observations. Or develop some other option, as equally un-provable as a supernatural designer, that one is more comfortable believing.

i think the only thing a deck of cards is identical with is a deck of cards. and the only thing that is identical with the physical constraints are the physical constraints.

I think the deck of cards thought experiment is a very good way of visualizing and appreciating the improbability and randomness the FTA expresses.

on the issue of FTA as a proof that God exists, or more broadly any proof of God is my comments are:

IMO FTA fails as a proof that God is. It does so because it is in conflict with skeptical theism. The only value I find in it, is as a test of those who claim to be agnostic. It is a very good test to see what degree someone claiming to be agnostic is actually open to the possibility of God is.

On the broader proof of God question. My view is there are 3 ways one can know something and believe it to be true, and act accordingly.

1. It is a fact, or demonstrably near fact. example. 2 + 2 = 4, Gravity
God is, is not a matter of fact. God is not, is not a matter of fact

2. By reason, given a set of truths one can believe by reason to believe something that is not a fact, to be true, and act accordingly. Anything one believes by reason however can not be in conflict with facts.

example. It is not a matter of fact that unicorns do not exist on earth. But it is reasonable to believe unicorns do not exist, because we would know a unicorn if we saw one, we have been looking in a very very large sample of places for a very long time, and we haven't seen one yet.

Both God is, and God is not is reasonable to believe.

And IMO the better conclusion to the traditional proofs of God is " therefor it is reasonable to believe God is"

3. by faith. By faith, one can believe anything, with the only caveat that it can not be in conflict with faith or reason.

For me, the only reason I argue the proofs of God is to support my Theism, which is a matter of faith, is a reasonable belief, against the argument that it is not reasonable. The very regular, Dawkin's "it is a fairy tale, flying spaghetti monster comments" that are so often given.

I would answer 1 in 6, but that just means that that's what I'd use in calculations about what to bet, in most situations. It's not a truth claim. It's not a fact. It's an assumption I make to help in decision-making. — andrewk

FTA is not making a truth statement about the nature of probability theory . Better said the truth statement would be, using the existing knowledge of probability theory, the probability of the current conditions existing that support life are very very unlikely.

Which is no different than saying, given any situation that mattered to you, you would use the existing knowledge of probability theory to evaluate the alternatives. If forced to play a game of Russian roulette, and it was your option to choose to load one or two bullets in the gun, you would not allow your skepticism on the underlying theory to interfere with your choice of one bullet because it increases the probability you will live.

Also given any such scenario as FTA supplies without the need to accept the possibility of supernatural designer, you would not allow your skeptical view on the validity of probability theory to change your answer.

If given the situation you find 10 flat rocks stacked on top of each other, largest to smallest, on a hike in the mountains. And given the choice of 2 hypothesis of how that came to be as:

1. Someone found those rocks and stacked them that way
2. they randomly fell from the mountain that way

Or if you found me at the table with a deck of cards in front of me, and as you turned them over and found them in order. Given the choice between:

1. I spent the last 10 minutes putting them in order
2. I just finished shuffling them, and that is how they ended

In both cases you would pick 1. And your objection to probability theory would in no way become an issue.

Which is the point. You don’t have an issue with FTA because of the issue of probability, you have an issue with FTA, because you have an issue with any answer that allows for a supernatural designer.

Most people, not being trained in Kolmogorov's formulation of probability theory would agree with you. But the more one learns about the foundation of probability theory, the more one realises that every statement about probabilities is based on a model, and is not truth-apt. Even if one accepted it as truth-apt and true, one would be going a lot further out on a limb to say it was a fact, which implies it is directly observable. How could we ever directly observe that the probability is one in six? We'd have to roll the dice infinitely many times and, even then, we could only make a statement about the probability that the probability was 1 in 6. — andrewk

Ok, so what is the chance I roll a 1 on a fair die ?

More generally, statements about probabilities are never observable facts. They are based on a model, and models are interpretations, not facts. — andrewk

Sorry, my comment about the factual nature of statements about probability was supposed to go with this.

But 3 is a claim about probability, with no support at all. As has been shown above, we can put whatever probability we like on the conditions obtaining, and each probability has as much support as any other, which is none at all. — andrewk

In reverse order

I propose the probability of rolling a 1 on a fair 6 sided dice is one chance in 6 is a true statement.

But 3 is a claim about probability, with no support at all. As has been shown above, we can put whatever probability we like on the conditions obtaining, and each probability has as much support as any other, which is none at all. — andrewk

That is a fair point, even if I could understand the physics behind this, which I probably can't, not sure many others could either. And I am sue it would take up a few pages of posts to provide the support you ask for. As I said on my post, I will freely admit I may not have stated perfectly. But when the argument is made professionally, this point is supported and its basis is completely consistent with current scientific knowledge. If you can't accept that, google is your friend.

here is a $400m dollar tweet

"The globalist Koch Brothers, who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, are against Strong Borders and Powerful Trade. I never sought their support because I don’t need their money or bad ideas. They love my Tax & Regulation Cuts, Judicial picks & more. I made."

let me try a different though experiment to highlight it.

You are taking a hike in the mountains.
You come to fork in the trail,
at the fork you see 10 flat rocks, one stacked upon the other largest on the bottom
smallest on the top, making a pyramid.

you are given 3 options for how these rock came to be there:
1. someone found them an stacked them that way
2. they randomly fell from the mountains and landed that way
3. there are an infinite number of you, in an infinite number of universes, in this infinite
set one with such a stack exists

It seem to me, maybe incorrectly, from many of the responses that some are not clear on the form of the FTA. It is not a proof of anything. It is just an observation on some verifiable truths.

1. embodied sentient beings like us exist.
2. There is a significant number of physical criteria necessary for 1 to exist
many of these criteria need to be within small tolerances for 1 to exist
3. In the realm of possible options, there is an incredibly low probability
all of these conditions will exist.

(I may not have done a good job on those, but when stated correctly they are all scientifically verifiable facts)

All FTA does is as for a probability guess on how such a condition can come into existence. FTA pro ports that it is by design. The only other hypotheses i have seen on this is either it was random, or the multi- universe statement.

Again - when stated correctly - you can not dispute 1, 2, 3 without leaving established science.

the discussion in on the explanation, and all 3 hypotheses are reasonable ( meaning not in conflict with fact ) - just a judgement on which one is more probable than another.

↪Rank Amateur Yes, I am aware of Robin Collins's argument. Maybe we'll get to him, but I was rather hoping to engage proponents of FTA directly. I could talk about Collins's argument (I'll need a refresher), but I wouldn't want to just talk to myself. I don't think his argument works, but he is one of the few to take up the defense of the FTA seriously, and if he is wrong, his failure is instructive. — SophistiCat

It was all the response your snide post required. Ditto for this one.

I don't argue facts. And I don't argue faith, both a waste of time.

I may not have communicated it well, but done properly 2and3 are facts as supported and believed as true by current science.

The argument goes -- at least if I'm reading any of this right -- that these are really specific values that could have been different, but weren't. The values that they are support life -- and there are very few such values that would support life. So the best explanation for these specific values is that there is a designer who chose them. — Moliere

My understanding of the argument goes:
1. sentient, moral agent beings like us exist.
2. in order for beings like us to exist those values, along with other criteria have to be
near exactly what they are - if any were changed appreciably - we would not exist.
3. the probability of all possible combinations of events needed for all of this criteria to
exist is incredibly unlikely - on the order of 52! or more.

Which hypothesis for these facts is most probable.

1. This system was designed as such to support 1. therefor there is in some way a designer
2. As improbable as it is these were all just random events that allowed 1.
3. There are an infinite number of universes or conditions that are in existence, making the odds that one like ours exist highly probable.

So it could have differed in one direction or another direction, hypothetically speaking. But it didn't. Why didn't it? — Moliere

yet again - you are trying to change the "what is" That is not an argument against FTA. You are in effects saying "ok lets just say the facts were different" Changing, the facts is not an argument.

or - if all you are doing is saying there could have been other combinations of differing criteria and who knows what would have been. That just seems like a long way around to saying the best hypothesis is randomness. Which brings me back to my deck of cards. In any example I can think of almost no one would assign randomness to set of criteria like this. It is only the prospect of some acknowledgment of the designer that makes it unpalatable in the case of FTA.

Again all arguments against FTA at their heart begins with the assumption the probability of a designer is near zero, no matter how good the logic is, because there can't be a designer, because.

The constants in physics are artifacts of our knowledge. — Moliere

no, these constants exist - with or without our knowledge of them. They existed long before we were aware of them and had the tools to quantity or express them in ways we understand them.

The constants are constant, so there's no need to think of them as if they landed precisely where they needed to in order for life to flourish. They didn't land at all. They're just the number they happen to be. — Moliere

You are in disagreement with established science who believe they need to be, in many cases, almost exactly what they are for life to flourish. And again, as above, the conditions were there, and existed long before we developed the ability to quantify them, or establish them as constants. Science didn't invent the constants, they explained the existing phenomenon.

Could they be different? Possibly. But it is also possible that they could not be different. — Moliere

The FTA is applying different hypothesis to "what is". You can't change the "what is" as an argument against. FTA starts with facts, we exist, these criteria for our existence, exist. the collective probability of all the criteria existing is incredibly incredibly incredibly unlikely. All FTA does is ask how probable we view different hypothesis for how this collection of facts could occur.

Why are there exactly 52 cards? Couldn't there be 60 cards? — Moliere

No it would not, yet again you want to change the factual perception of what is. The only thing you can change and stay within the FTA argument is the "why" not the what.

This is half of what I believe. I'd just add that the primary reason there is any debate is that the predisposition for different persons is either for or against the proposition -- and the plausibility of these arguments has mostly to do with this belief rather than whatever rational merits the arguments claim to have.

It's the conclusion that matters, not the process of reasoning. — Moliere

I disagree - as per the deck of cards experiment. There is little doubt that design is the most probable answer for the FTA. It is just that theists, or those open to theism easily accept this answer. Others, who's predisposition can not accept theism or its possibility need to find another equally metaphysical answer - this is just an elevation of science to religion.

both the cosmological arguments, and the FTA rest on using some supernatural element as an hypothesis for an unknown. Other than that I do not see much that
is similar. I do not find the FTA to be an argument for the existence of God personally, because it is in conflict with skeptical theism.

What I think it is best for is testing declared agnostics to their openness to the possibility that God is. There is no doubt that designer is the most logical answer to the FTA. The primary reason that there is any debate at all on that point is driven by a predisposition on many that the probability of God/supernatural designer is near zero.

Hence my deck of cards though experiment - remove God from the FTA and the answer becomes obvious - put God back in and it becomes impossible.

Explain your reasoning in this thought experiment. What if the card order was not the canonical order - would your answer be different? Why? — SophistiCat

The reasoning is self evident to me at least. And the entire point is the deck is in order. If the deck was in some random order, it would change my answer to randomness.

How do you calculate the probability - not of the card deck permutation, of course, but of the universe being life-supporting? Show your work, please. — SophistiCat

http://home.messiah.edu/%7Ercollins/Fine-tuning/Revised%20Version%20of%20Fine-tuning%20for%20anthology.doc

See above