james bond
Well-Known Member
Oldie but goldie. They now use science of the gaps such as multiverse to deny God's design.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists Physicists Discover God. Turn To Science Of The Gaps.
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
james bond
Well-Known Member
No question quantum physics is hot, but I get the feeling that some non-believers think its discoveries of black holes will mean that atheists will have something to replace God. Think of it. The black hole can suck up everything in the universe including light. The opposite of what God did. However, that has not been the case. Instead, they found a fine-tuned universe instead of proof of black holes. I used to think these quantum physicists had evidence of black holes, but now I wonder. For example, many will tell you that a black hole exists at the center of our universe. That has not been peer-reviewed and this idea has been around for a while. I'm not saying black holes are crazy ideas, but show me the black hole $$$$s.
What's a black hole?
If you take plastic wrap and place a baseball in it to represent mass, the wrap bends to a form a curved shape. Now place a couple drops of water to see that it runs down the sides of the curved cup. Now place a heavier iron ball and we see that the water drops run faster down the sides. Keep placing heavier iron balls until the wrap break and everything goes down into the hole. The death of a star is supposed to cause this hole.
The wacky questions about black holes.
https://www.quora.com/topic/Black-Holes
What's a black hole?
If you take plastic wrap and place a baseball in it to represent mass, the wrap bends to a form a curved shape. Now place a couple drops of water to see that it runs down the sides of the curved cup. Now place a heavier iron ball and we see that the water drops run faster down the sides. Keep placing heavier iron balls until the wrap break and everything goes down into the hole. The death of a star is supposed to cause this hole.
The wacky questions about black holes.
https://www.quora.com/topic/Black-Holes
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Evidence of “fine tuning” of the universe isn’t proof of design and even if there were proof of design, that wouldn’t automatically mean the designer was a “god” by any traditional definition, let alone the very specifically defined being you’re thinking of when your say God.
The OP is irresponsible and misleading. Frankly, it cheapens theism in an embarrassing way.
It's a trick!
The OP offers proof of a god, but makes us watch a video....one which doesn't deliver.
The OP offers proof of a god, but makes us watch a video....one which doesn't deliver.
Your premise is faulty. Speaking for myself, I don't need to replace any concept of god or gods; I only need to replace a lack of facts unless the facts exist, and facts do exist in the case of many aspects of physics.
I don't need to replace a version of a story that I believe never happened in the first place.
There is little if any need to "replace" God. I don't think you have a good grasp of the actual nature and purpose of the concept of God, else you would not make such unwarranted assumptions.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Where is the data he used to discover God? What were his testing methods? Where are his conclusions written? Was his study and subsequent discovery subjected to peer review?
Nothing discovered, nothing proven, nothing . . .
james bond
Well-Known Member
The video was to show that it was atheist physicists who found the fine tuning theory. Shout out and thanks from the creationists. It really is an oldie but goldie. No wonder the atheists didn't point this out. Now as to the comment that this does not prove design, let me see. What it does is it does prove intelligence behind this fine tuning of our universe. The design is in the universe and how it works because our earth is placed just in the right place with the moon and sun. Then it has these other planets we can explore. So yes, looking at our Milky Way and Earth, I would think that it was designed very nicely.
Furthermore, I would say Stephen Hawking seems to accept these findings and he proposes the existence of Multiverses to counter. It's interesting that the man pictured in the video, Leonard Susskind, is the theoretical physicist who is arguing for GR in his position against Stephen Hawking's view that quantum behaviors affect black holes. Hawking, who I would consider is an expert on black holes, has now modified what is meant by event horizon or horizon in his approach. I think this is correct.
Hawking also believes in fine tuning and it demonstrates his intelligence. Does it also show design? I don't know. It depends what this other universe looks like. Does it look random like a tornado hit my son's room. Or is it some kind of organized structure.
As for my comment, "They now use science of the gaps such as multiverse to deny God's design." It is to in response to what Hawking is saying that the multiverses would show God doesn't play dice and that the existence of our universe was not just one-in-a-trillions occurrence. I really wanted to get that "science of the gaps" point in there.
Back to the video, I would agree its title is misleading and the message cards in it are selling a pov. However, the other content in the video shows evidence of a scientific finding. As for Dick Dawkins, if this was really his response to the finding, then he does seem obsessed with God. Is that one of the main topics of his interview with Weinberg? For a man who disavows God, he does seem obsessed with God by bringing it up. I would say about 1/2 the video is good, but it does make the point that atheist physicists found fine tuning.
Furthermore, I would say Stephen Hawking seems to accept these findings and he proposes the existence of Multiverses to counter. It's interesting that the man pictured in the video, Leonard Susskind, is the theoretical physicist who is arguing for GR in his position against Stephen Hawking's view that quantum behaviors affect black holes. Hawking, who I would consider is an expert on black holes, has now modified what is meant by event horizon or horizon in his approach. I think this is correct.
Hawking also believes in fine tuning and it demonstrates his intelligence. Does it also show design? I don't know. It depends what this other universe looks like. Does it look random like a tornado hit my son's room. Or is it some kind of organized structure.
As for my comment, "They now use science of the gaps such as multiverse to deny God's design." It is to in response to what Hawking is saying that the multiverses would show God doesn't play dice and that the existence of our universe was not just one-in-a-trillions occurrence. I really wanted to get that "science of the gaps" point in there.
Back to the video, I would agree its title is misleading and the message cards in it are selling a pov. However, the other content in the video shows evidence of a scientific finding. As for Dick Dawkins, if this was really his response to the finding, then he does seem obsessed with God. Is that one of the main topics of his interview with Weinberg? For a man who disavows God, he does seem obsessed with God by bringing it up. I would say about 1/2 the video is good, but it does make the point that atheist physicists found fine tuning.
Fine-tuning cannot be falsified as a theory nor hypothesis, nor demonstrated by scientific methods. The claim of Theist fine-tuning requires the assumption that God exists.
I would say . . . ?!?!?! I believe you are misrepresenting Stephen Hawking.
Disagreements on the physical nature and implications of black holes does not represent a falsifiable hypothesis for the existence nor non-existence of God. Conclusions concerning the existence and nature of God represent philosophical and theological assumptions and beliefs and not science.
No Hawking does not believe in fine-tuning.
james bond
Well-Known Member
It's just a hypothesis that I am tossing out. We are a society, at least American society, that is very interested in black holes. It's one of the reasons Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time became a runaway best seller and a physics book yet! That is quite remarkable. Thus, I was expanding it because one of the properties of a gigantic black hole is total annihilation of its surround neighbors.
In this case, I was using God as one who created the sun, moon, planets, stars in day 4 and outer space (universe) in day 1 and placed Earth in day2 as the beneficiary. So in this regard, the black hole would be the anti-God in that it destroys his work. It does seem evolutionists are looking to replace what creationists say was created with some replacement using science instead of searching for the truth. In other words, is it knowledge that we are looking for or some way to disavow God as the Creator? This is what I mean by replacing.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I would say fine-tuning shows intelligence vs no intelligence as the video stated when it is a one-in-a-trillions occurrence or else the universe falls apart. The falsification is in the claim by Hawking of multiverses. Get it now?
From what I know about Hawking, it's from his you tube videos and reading Brief History of Time and A Briefer History of Time. I discovered him from the Dawkins interview video which I posted. He's an interesting man and someone who I would consider and expert on black holes. Maybe God led me to him. I just had this intuition about him. How well do you know Hawking?
Hawking says he accepts fine tuning.
Not the center of the universe. The center of the *galaxy*. Do you know the difference?
Evidence for Black Holes
A black hole is an object whose escape velocity is more than the speed of light. This escape velocity can be found from standard physics concerning gravity.
We see such situations in the center of most galaxies. But in the above article, we also see the results of matter going into the black hole.
Now, there are other conceptions of the term 'black hole' that may or may not exist (the jury is still out). For example, according to Hawking, it is possible for black holes to evaporate through quantum processes (Hawking radiation). We have not been able to detect this radiation (it is a very, very small component of the energy of large black holes), so we don't know if he is correct in this (although simulations with sonic black holes show the math works).
Wow. This is so far wrong it is hard to even know where to start. PLEASE go to better websites for your information.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I want to point out here that the black hole theory has not been shown to exist. It has not been peer-reviewed yet. Thus, no one has actually found the location of a black hole. It's invisible. We have claims of a black hole existing in the center of our galaxy, but that one could be myth. Still, I think black holes do exist with the current evidence. Even creation scientists have accepted to the point that they have used a white hole theory.
That is a bit simplistic. If you are far enough from a black hole, the gravity is no different than for anything else of that mass. It is only if you get close (which is possible for black holes) that the interesting stuff happens.
But we have good evidence of very massive objects in small volumes (which gives high density and thereby a high gravitational field) at the center of most galaxies, including out own. We have seen matter 'fall' into these objects, leading to an outburst of energy and the disappearance of the matter. And the observations like this are consistent with the theoretical models from which black holes were predicted. Furthermore, we have no alternative explanation of the phenomena we see.
Wow. Do you conspiracy theory much?
james bond
Well-Known Member
Ack. It should have read center of Milky Way. I've used MW in other places and you know it. What a fraudulent cheapster you are. You want to make me look dumb when it is you that looks dumb.
As for the rest, it seems like you have an axe to grind against me.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Every pot hole is fine tuned to become a puddle. Look how perfectly the water fits!
No ax to grind. Yes you used MW in other contexts, but it is far from clear to me that you understand the basic concepts here. In fact, it is clear to me that you misunderstand many of them.
Edit: That said, you seem to be legitimately trying to understand. But I really do suggest you get away from videos and popular accounts if you want to go deeper into this.