Do Black Holes Exist? Are Black Holes Scientific?

[chrispalasz]

I wasn't sure where to ask this question, but it is related to the "Do you believe in Santa" thread, which is under the Christian topic, so I posted this one here too.

For Clarification: Black Holes are often discussed in science. There are many new and interesting theories being developed on them every day. Black Holes are not observable.

If God is going to be dismissed from possibility because such observable evidence cannot be produced - then Black Holes must also be dismissed from possibility.

So, for the same reasons - only with an opposite objective, let's ask these questions:

Do Black Holes exist?

Are Black Holes Scientific?

Cheers. 8)

[seventil]

Something important that I think has been ignored in this thread is this:

Science is adaptable and flexible in its willingness and ability to change its dogma given credible evidence. Religion is stubbornly obstinate about allowing new ideas, even if those ideas prove superior.

The perception of religion being 'stubbornly obstinate" about new ideas is not due to conflict of science, merely conflict of people and their personal views of the world. Religion itself it pure; it, like science, should be the pursuit of truth.

Science does not "own" searching for truth, even though by popular opinion, it does. I've always thought that the pursuit of truth can take many avenues, religion and science being some of them.

Don't confuse a person's unwillinglyness to be reasonable or open-minded with a stereotype on all religion. People believe in God because it is truth to them; because it is provable and logical to them. Just because they reject your perception of the world does not make them any less of a person. However, like a non-believer, they will of course believe their view correct, and it is their right to defend their view.

So, please do not stereotype all persons of faith with being unreasonable or unadaptable. 6,000 or 6 billion years ago is the same for me, because I know God exists for certain and I love Him just the same, either way.

[Dilettante]

seventil, excuse me but I am tempted to play devil's advocate here a bit.
seventil wrote:

The effects of the content of the Bible are easily observable using the First Law of Thermodynamics. That is, something cannot be made from nothing. Period, end of point, all other arguments are null and void. Abiogenesis theories are interesting, yet I know of no evolutionist who will embrace them as empirical or truth. The same for the big bang theory; it's an idea, but it's not evidence. The only thing to adequately explain how anything is even in existance today is that it was created by a Higher Power.

How do you know it is the only explanation? The ancient Greeks believed that the universe had always existed. Materialists today (I know a few) believe matter always existed. Or energy, which should be convertible into matter if I am not misinterpreting Einstein.
If someone asked you who made God (since something cannot come out of nothing), how would you respond? Perhaps by saying that God is by definition uncreated? (only an idea) Besides, your point could be used to validate the contents of the Koran also, and of almost any other sacred text.
You say science might one day discover God (although you find this unlikely). I am tempted to say it's impossible, because science deals with measurable, physical things, not with metaphysical entities. Anyway, if science could discover God, wouldn't that also negate the need for faith?
Either God is tangible or He isn't. Could perhaps scientific truth and spiritual truth be of a different nature?
I am an agnostic theist, i.e., I tend to favor the idea of God, but I can't determine whether or not God exists. I don't think logic or math or science or reason can help me with that. Would that they could! But then again, as you said, the need for faith would vanish. Isn't there a contradiction in claiming that both logic and faith can lead you to God? If logic can, what good is faith then?

[seventil]

seventil, excuse me but I am tempted to play devil's advocate here a bit.

How do you know it is the only explanation? The ancient Greeks believed that the universe had always existed. Materialists today (I know a few) believe matter always existed. Or energy, which should be convertible into matter if I am not misinterpreting Einstein.

I didn't say it was the only explanation. I said it was the only explanation, in my opinion, that makes any sense. To believe in any abiogenesis theory, or universal creation theory, takes faith (and I hope no one is pragmatic enough to argue). With all the unknowns and uncertainties in everything; even without knowing God personally, you can still choose an Intelligent Design creation just as reasonably as a non-ID one. It's simply exchanging one set of faith for another.

If someone asked you who made God (since something cannot come out of nothing), how would you respond? Perhaps by saying that God is by definition uncreated? (only an idea) Besides, your point could be used to validate the contents of the Koran also, and of almost any other sacred text.

Haha - yes, using my own logic, the "where did God come from?" question would indeed seem to break the simple law that I stated. However, when dealing with God, we cannot limit him to the laws or dimensions that we are subject to.

I wonder about this question a lot... where did God come from? The thing that haunts me the most is that we were created in His image. That means, somewhere, sometime, perhaps "God" was human, or at least in a physical human form. Perhaps in another universe humanity did exist, and transcended into what "God" is now. This is merely wild speculation however, and best suited for wine-induced theological debates with loved ones, and not forums.

You say science might one day discover God (although you find this unlikely). I am tempted to say it's impossible, because science deals with measurable, physical things, not with metaphysical entities. Anyway, if science could discover God, wouldn't that also negate the need for faith?
Either God is tangible or He isn't. Could perhaps scientific truth and spiritual truth be of a different nature?

Actually I said that science might one day discover a theory that adequately describes a violation of the first law of thermodynamics and supports abiogenesis. However, in my opinion, it will not. That is, it won't find anything disproving God did indeed create everything.

I am an agnostic theist, i.e., I tend to favor the idea of God, but I can't determine whether or not God exists. I don't think logic or math or science or reason can help me with that. Would that they could! But then again, as you said, the need for faith would vanish. Isn't there a contradiction in claiming that both logic and faith can lead you to God? If logic can, what good is faith then?

Yes, reducing faith into logic would deem faith unneeded. If all you had to do to believe was look at something supernatural, or simply hear the booming voice at any time - faith would not be an issue. To an untrained eye it would appear that God hides from our prepherial senses; he doesn't burn bushes or float on chariots these days (at least in the western cultures).

As far as your indecision as if God exists or not, that of course is a personal experience that everyone must go through. I have struggled in the past with this same problem, being somewhat of a scientist at heart growing up. I needed to see evidence, proofs of God, to actually believe. I needed something to fall back on if I was losing faith - something that I could remember in my head and tangibly touch and feel. It was not until I needed God and asked for Him to come into my life that I truly started to see it all around me.

Remember, though, the aspect of faith. That's what it's all about. If he had shown me something, even something only I could have seen, I would not have needed to have faith. I could have simply believed because there was no other logical or reasonable way not to believe, since I had seen an "avatar" of God. It is my belief that God does this so he can relate with human beings, and not mindless zombies who have to believe because it's the only thing plausible.

Anyway, I would suggest taking a look at the Intelligent Design theory if you haven't. It's helped me understand the beauty behind the creation of our world.

Hope that helped.

[Dilettante]

Thanks for your response, seventil. I appreciate your rationality. I am familiar with ID, and I even started a thread in the Creationism/evolution subforum called "Intelligent Desing...is it in the eye of the beholder?". My point is that, while being a valid metaphysical viewpoint, ID fails as a scientific explanation for many reasons. One of them is the impossibility to scientifically determine design in the universe without resorting to extra-scientific, Deus ex machina explanations. So, in my view, it is in the eye of the beholder. However, one is justified in believing in some kind of God or superior intelligence as long as one is clear about the metaphysical nature of such a position. In other words, the place for ID is not the science classroom, as some suggest, but the philosophy classroom. As I see it, your position is completely legitimate.
However, I have to (scientifically speaking) be agnostic about the origins of life also. I don't see science as a set of beliefs, so I'll suspend judgment until more is known (if such a thing is possible).

Haha - yes, using my own logic, the "where did God come from?" question would indeed seem to break the simple law that I stated. However, when dealing with God, we cannot limit him to the laws or dimensions that we are subject to.

As I said, your position is legitimate. But the first thing a critic would point out is "why can't the universe be exempted too?" And it seems to me that we still don't know enough about the universe to decide one way or the other.

BTW, I like your idea of wine-induced theology debates...

I have struggled in the past with this same problem, being somewhat of a scientist at heart growing up. I needed to see evidence, proofs of God, to actually believe. I needed something to fall back on if I was losing faith - something that I could remember in my head and tangibly touch and feel. It was not until I needed God and asked for Him to come into my life that I truly started to see it all around me.

Perfectly understandable again. You see, the problem with me (and I'm not a scientist) is that, if I desperately asked God for a sign, I know I would tend to interpret anything as a sign. So I would be wondering whether or not I was simply deluding myself.

Thanks anyway for your lucid response!

[seventil]

However, I have to (scientifically speaking) be agnostic about the origins of life also. I don't see science as a set of beliefs, so I'll suspend judgment until more is known (if such a thing is possible).

I don't think you have to be agnostic about the origins of life just because you have an open mind. I am a Creationist and a young-earth advocate, but I consider myself open minded. I don't consider my viewpoint empirical by scientific means, but I also don't consider it disprovable by scientific means. I have the same view as evolutionary theory; I agree with the theory mostly (dating methods and common ancestory to primates are my biggest complains about it) - but I think that the theory is now and always will be unprovable, but also un-disprovable.

To a certain extent, I am agnostic myself. Mainly in that I don't think anyone (except ol' JC!) really understood the entire purpose of God and the intricacies that make up our world. I think every Christian is agnostic to a point, because most concede a certain level of trust and faith in God, that everything will work out in the end, and he's in control, and it's not needed for everyone to know everything that has ever happened and why or why not it has or will (whew!).

Where I differ from a true agnostic is I believe in God, and that He is obtainable (on a certain level) to us, right here and right now. By no means do I think our minds can comprehend that beauty that is Him completely, but it is merely a preview to what will come after all the stuff in Revelation goes past. I guess this is why it's called the narrow path; the one least travelled by.

[RevJP]

My point is that, while being a valid metaphysical viewpoint, ID fails as a scientific explanation for many reasons. One of them is the impossibility to scientifically determine design in the universe without resorting to extra-scientific

Interesting point. It is worth noting that scientists have been coming to the acceptance of an ID in increasing numbers. It seems that the more they learn and discover, the more they realize that thier previous notions of chance and only natural causes are more and more unlikely, and implausible.

Perhaps their assumption that only the measurable is true is in error...

[bernee51]

[ It is worth noting that scientists have been coming to the acceptance of an ID in increasing numbers.

Really Rev? Is this your opinion? Or can you back it with evidence? Given your record I'd really like to see the evidence. It is not that I think that you would intentionally deceive...that would be a sin wouldn't it?

You have no doubt heard of Project Steve that effectively debunks (you love that word, don't you Rev) your claim.

The best place to start (as is often the case) is on their FAQ page.

[RevJP]

So Bernee, what you are saying is that NO scientists have accepted an ID point of view?

Since that is all I claimed you must be saying that none have.

I think you are trying to intentionally deceive.

What sort of evidence would you like? The name of a scientist who has accepted ID?

Your own web reference provides that evidence. So what say you? Is there evidence that supports my assertion: It is worth noting that scientists have been coming to the acceptance of an ID in increasing numbers.

[bernee51]

So Bernee, what you are saying is that NO scientists have accepted an ID point of view?

No I didn't claim that.

Since that is all I claimed you must be saying that none have.

I think you are trying to intentionally deceive.

Not at all Rev - you used the qualifier 'increasing numbers' - or have you conveniently forgotten that?

Did you mean there was one last week and now there are two? (wow an increase of 100%. )

What sort of evidence would you like? The name of a scientist who has accepted ID?

No names necessary, unless you happen to know both their names

- just how you figure what 'increasing numbers' are and how you arrived at the claim.

Your own web reference provides that evidence.

Really? You must have read something into it that I missed. I'll go back and have another look.

{{{Time passes by}}}

Nup - still can't see it...you wouldn't tell a porkie would you Rev?

Is there evidence that supports my assertion: It is worth noting that scientists have been coming to the acceptance of an ID in increasing numbers.

I dunno Rev - is there? You are the one making the assertion.

[RevJP]

Actually, one scientist and then two scientist is considered 'increasing numbers', but I was thinking more along the lines of multiple numbers of scientists.

Did not your "steve" list provide links to the lists of scientist's names to which it was making fun?

What is the entire point here?

I noted that scientists have been coming to the acceptance of the ID belief in increasing numbers. Bernee, as is his usual MO, tried to misrepresent what I have actually posted in order to set up a fallacious argument. The fact remains, there are scientists, who previously accepted the evolutionary origin of life theory who now have accepted the idea of an Intelligent Designer, based on their knowlege of the improbability of a natural origin of life.

One cannot deny that this is truth, unless one can show that no scientist, has done so.