he_who_is_nobody said:[
Again, I never said seems to have been means is not. Your analogy even demonstrates this. If someone says "the book seems to have been publish, they are stating an opinion to which they do not know the truth. When someone says a book is published, than they actually know it was published. See the difference? Again, stop thinking in dichotomies.
:lol: :lol:
ok so it would be fare to conclude that according to SH´s opinion de universe is FT, which is what I ve been saying all along.
Nope. The very next line (that you kept leaving out) says:
Stephen Hawkings in "A Brief History of Time" said:Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of a star like the sun or the heavier chemical elements that are made in stars and are flung back into space when the stars explode.
This reads to me like he is poking fun at the counterfactual nature of the fine-tuning. Thus, if you are going to conclude that Hawking accepts fine-tuning, you must also conclude that Hawking believes fine-tuning is not necessary for intelligent life. One might as well use that quote to conclude that Hawking is arguing for Yahweh based on what I just quoted.
what SH, is doing is presenting a possibility, maybe intelligent beings can exist without stars, but he is not making any assertion, he is not asserting that these beings exist.
I am tired of this, I did my research and found out that SH grants the FT of the universe, so you ether take my word or do some research in any source you consider reliable.
You are trying to compare apples to oranges.
Ice melts at higher temperatures, agree?
Adding more liquid water to a volume will cause it to rise, agree?
of course I agree, but if one uses your logic we would have to reject those simple and uncontroversial statements.
based on your logoc.....Maybe a big portion of the ice is made out of some wild chemicals that doesn't melts so easily, maybe there is an unknown mechanism that would prevent ice form melting, maybe the melting point of ice changes tomorrow.
and the best part of this is that according to your logic, I don't have to prove any of this statements, you are the one who has to prove that all of these statements are wrong.
Ice melts at higher temperatures, agree?
Adding more liquid water to a volume will cause it to rise, agree?
well...
entropy increases as time passes
Life can only exists if the entropy is low.......agree?
It is statistically more likely to have high entropy than low entropy.......agree?
therefore the life permitting rage is narrow, ......in Oder words fine tuning....
these are all uncontroversial statements, these statements are as uncontroversial as the idea that ice melts with heat.........but using your logic you could always find reasons to be skeptic.
both statements are base on counterfactuals, both statements are based on uncontroversial premises, but in both cases one can invoke an unknown mechanism that would prevent this to happen
1 Ice would melt and San Francisco would be flooded
2 and life would not exist if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high
so until you present a good reason to accept 1 and reject 2, I have no other option but to assume that you reject 2 simply because you personally don't like the implications.
So as I told you earlier, this is my conclusion,
leroy said:these Counterfactuals are enough to convince the majority of experts that the universe is FT, and even you grant some statements that are based on the same type of counterfactuals. you are making an arbitrary exception with FT and you haven provided any good reasons for making such an exception.