God Is Like a Black Hole

Parallel
Parallel's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2009-10-26
User is offlineOffline
God Is Like a Black Hole

In a sense, you can think of God like a black hole; they both are mysterious, both are unable to be seen, and they are both infinite.

That's bull shit, in physics infinity is impossible, it's a complete and utter monster. Black holes have been proven of their existence, although with today's aspects of calculating mass and gravity you come to the conclusion that: A black hole is a singularity; it has infinite mass, infinite density, infinite gravity, and an infinite space-time curvature. If that were true, the universe would be one great big black hole, that's just silly. Now black holes were laughable a while back, they seemed utterly impossible, but with modern technology we are able to observe the effects of something that simply MUST be a black hole; an immense amount of gravity in a very small space. Black holes are impossible yet they exist.

God on the other hand is very similar. Although we haven't had any infallible evidence of a god there is an eerie similarity between god an black holes. Now let me make this clear, I'm not talking about the hypocritical, spiteful, arrogant, and idiotic god in Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, I'm speaking of a god or gods that created the universe or even life. Until the big bang theory is proven Theists will keep fighting, I myself being an agnostic find it rather plausible for the existence of some "god-like" figure to linger somewhere. Now God is great and all, but:

@ Current Topic

Are black holes the equivalent of a god?

Why have we proven black holes but not god if they are on the same level of fallibility?

Could a black hole be considered a god?

@ Gods In General

Does a god "live?"

Why would a god create the universe and/or life?

Why would a god exist?

Deism, Pandeism, or the Big Bang?

If so, does a god "die?"

If so, does a god "die?"

Could there be more than one god?

Where are gods?

What are gods?

Where do gods come from?

Is a god intelligent?

@ Christians (I just had to do it haha)

Why are humans so special?

Why was the universe made for us even though God pretty much hates us?

Why are galaxies older than the Earth if god created everything then?

Why are you still here!?

@ Atheists

What are your thoughts on gods?

Why is it so impossible for gods to exist?

Why do some of you regard theists as irrational?

 

Now here's just a little disclaimer: I'm an agnostic-atheist, my perception of god is that: the chances of one not existing are higher than the chances of one existing, but there is no infallible evidence for either side yet. I'm humble, if you can convince me I can believe, and I'm sure many other agnostics and atheists empathize that view. Also bear with me, I make this rather quickly, also I had an awful headache.

And yes, I use colons a lot.


"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them." ~Galileo Galilei


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to just pick one...

 

Are black holes the equivalent of god?

No christian theist would agree god is a black hole. He is a personal, loving god who wants to be their best friend. He watches their every move and plans it all out for them to the t.

 

Personally I see no evidence of a god of any type. This clunky, madcap universe with it's vast suffering only makes sense to me if there is no god. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Parallel wrote:That's bull

Parallel wrote:
That's bull shit, in physics infinity is impossible,

Why?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Parallel

butterbattle wrote:

Parallel wrote:
That's bull shit, in physics infinity is impossible,

Why?

'Infinity' does usually does point to a problem in the math or the theory on which the math is based.

I have never figured out how even some physicists speculate about the Universe possibly being infinite in size, since this would mean that the Big Bang singularity was already infinite in size, or that the Universe had for at least a short but finite period expanded at an infinite rate, and I am pretty sure there is no indication of this actually having happened.

Black holes are definitely not infinite in mass. That is why micro black holes that might conceivably be created by the LHC would not suddenly swallow up the Earth.

They may not even be truly infinite in density, unless they really are 'true' singularities in every sense.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
The universe

 

We really are just babes in the woods, aren't we.


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Science and religion have

Science and religion have always fascinated me. Two very amazing topics indeed.

I'm not sure if it is this site or I am just getting old, but both topics are getting more and more difficult.

TBBT does not posit a singularity.

Measurement is relative.

Time was invented.

Infinty is infinitely complex.

 

God is.

 

 

Knowing proves nothing, and knowing nothing is bliss. But proving nothing is truly knowing.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The standard BBT does posit

The standard BBT does posit a singularity.

What is described by the invented concept of 'time' does exist as an aspect of reality, no doubt as a manifestation of something far more subtle.

'Infinity' is invented.

 

God is not. (to clarify, is not existant, but is invented).

 

'Knowledge' is a poorly defined concept. It is relative. It can be interpreted to show either that we 'know' nothing, or that everything ever believed by some person can count as 'knowledge', at least within their context.

Knowledge is just belief which the individual is maximally certain of, or the body of belief which the group is completely confident of.

'Proof' in the world of reality beyond the realm of tautological systems such as math is not possible, or should be interpreted with degrees of confidence which can approach but never validly achieve 100%.

 

The final ultimate Truth: jumbo1410 is a dumbass of very shallow thought.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I would just like to point

I would just like to point out that black holes do not have infinite mass. They have finite mass, ranging over many orders of magnitude. That is all, carry on.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just to recap:Black Holes

Just to recap:

Black Holes are not infinite, and can be very readily detected, if not directly seen. The gravitational pull is hard to miss, and the way light is distorted around them is also visible.

The mass of a black hole is essentially the same as the mass of the star or other body which originally collapsed to form it, plus whatever else has fallen into it. It is just an object of sufficient density that even light can not escape from its surface.

If our sun collapsed into a black hole, the planets would continue to orbit it just as they do now. Black Holes DO NOT SUCK!

What is it with Theists who only consider the sense of sight when trying to discuss things that we cannot detect with our senses??

Belief in God rots your brain.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Parallel
Parallel's picture
Posts: 72
Joined: 2009-10-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Just to

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just to recap:

Black Holes are not infinite, and can be very readily detected, if not directly seen. The gravitational pull is hard to miss, and the way light is distorted around them is also visible.

The mass of a black hole is essentially the same as the mass of the star or other body which originally collapsed to form it, plus whatever else has fallen into it. It is just an object of sufficient density that even light can not escape from its surface.

If our sun collapsed into a black hole, the planets would continue to orbit it just as they do now. Black Holes DO NOT SUCK!

What is it with Theists who only consider the sense of sight when trying to discuss things that we cannot detect with our senses??

Belief in God rots your brain.

 

 

Yeah, I worded my post wrong, like I said I was in a hurry; I also had a headache. Here's what I meant:

 

In general relativity, Einstein's equation Rmv-1/2GmvR~Tmv it states that if you start with anything it will determine the curvature that surrounds that body. After some time calculating with a black hole you end up with mostly 0s, although with the final numbers you are left with are 1/R, in a black hole's case R=0 therefor you end with 1/0=, that's what I was referring to.


"I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them." ~Galileo Galilei


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The standard BBT does

Quote:
The standard BBT does posit a singularity.

What is described by the invented concept of 'time' does exist as an aspect of reality, no doubt as a manifestation of something far more subtle.

'Infinity' is invented.

 

God is not. (to clarify, is not existant, but is invented).

 

'Knowledge' is a poorly defined concept. It is relative. It can be interpreted to show either that we 'know' nothing, or that everything ever believed by some person can count as 'knowledge', at least within their context.

Knowledge is just belief which the individual is maximally certain of, or the body of belief which the group is completely confident of.

'Proof' in the world of reality beyond the realm of tautological systems such as math is not possible, or should be interpreted with degrees of confidence which can approach but never validly achieve 100%.

 

 

Can you be 100% certain of that? Eye-wink


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote:< ....

jumbo1410 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

< .... >

'Proof' in the world of reality beyond the realm of tautological systems such as math is not possible, or should be interpreted with degrees of confidence which can approach but never validly achieve 100%.

 

 

Can you be 100% certain of that? Eye-wink

There are many propositions which we can be 100% certain about:

1. The probability that we can know anything significant about the specific properties of galaxies billions of light-years away is close to zero.

2. The chances that we can come to understand the ultimate nature of reality is negligible.

Even those statements could almost conceivably be wrong, but to a vanishingly small degree, based on the difficulty we already have with 'getting our minds around' things like Quantum Mechanics, which is an extremely well verified theory.

Propositions about the nature of propositional statements are always logically problematic, as they start to involve a degree of self-reference, ie circularity.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:@ AtheistsWhat are

Quote:

@ Atheists

What are your thoughts on gods?

Why is it so impossible for gods to exist?

Why do some of you regard theists as irrational?

1) each to there own..... seems a silly idea to me but does no harm unless you start adding things on. It makes no differance really if there is a god or if there isn't.

 

2) I don't think its impossible but it just seems silly at least the traditional view of "god".  The main reason why i don't think they  exist is the question why? Why would they exist? Forget creation of the earth and all that nonsense... why should a god exist?

 

3) sometimes they say silly things.... then again so do I.... i can admit to being irrational on many topics. Everyone is irrational about something

 

yes im aware I used the word "silly" in all three answers. And yet some how said absolutly nothing.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
All your statement proves is

jumbo1410 wrote:

Science and religion have always fascinated me. Two very amazing topics indeed.

I'm not sure if it is this site or I am just getting old, but both topics are getting more and more difficult.

TBBT does not posit a singularity.

Measurement is relative.

Time was invented.

Infinty is infinitely complex. 

God is.

 

 

how much you're prepared to put to one side in order to rest your weary head on those final 2 words.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
 Bob, I'm not sure if you

 

Bob, I'm not sure if you are awrae of it, but you begin by saying one thing:

Quote:
There are many propositions which we can be 100% certain about:

And then contradict yourself:

Quote:
Even those statements could almost conceivably be wrong...Propositions about the nature of propositional statements are always logically problematic

Surely it can be only one or the other? If something is 100% certain, how can it conceivably be wrong at all? Or even considered problematic? I get the feeling you are hedging your bet - bordelining on an informal fallacy.

In philosophy, there are arguments both for and against 100% certainty "propositions". These statements are usually along the lines of "self evident truths", if such a thing does exist. For example, the statement "No circle is a square" seems to be self evident and true, meaning that it does not need to be supported by other statements to make it true. However, some philosophers think that even this is special pleading - that every proposition needs supporting through other statements. If they are right, then there truly are no 100%'s at this point.

Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, I hardly think that the concept of self evidence extends to almost anything other than the most simple of statements.

With respect to propositions (transcending linguistics), the burden of proof for using the word "propositions" instead of statements, premises or sentences, remains with the proponent.

I don't mean to be rude or provoke argument, but as I said before, the more I learn the more there is to learn, and the less I end up knowing. Either discussion about meaning are relevant, or they are not. If it is a matter of degree, then it is relative. Unless we are to abandon all knwoledge, what hope have we got?

 

To Atheistextremist:

"how much you're prepared to put to one side in order to rest your weary head on those final 2 words."

I think that translates into assuming that because I am a theist I mean "God is real" or something similar. You are quite within your rights to make up whatever you want with those two words. People have been for thousands of years.

 

Or does it mean putting aside the thousnads of years of turmoil generated by" God is?"

One thing always bothers me about the whole "Religion causes evil" argument. It is similar to the argument from probability in that it shares the same deficiencies IMO. Fundy Utilitarians experience the same problem.

I think that evil is overdetermined in this world (and don't get all thingy about the word "Evil". It is as much a philosophical term as it is a theistic term. Evil is roughly equivalent to pain and misery etc.). If, and I mean if, religion was the cause of all the pain and misery throughout the ages, (the inquisitions etc) then the abscence of religion should eliminate the evil caused by it. Is that how the argument goes?

Anyway, consequentionalist approaches suck and I am rambling. Lol.

 

EDIT: Spelling and grandma

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No Jumbo I wasn't droning about evil

jumbo1410 wrote:

 

To

Atheistextremist

:

"how much you're prepared to put to one side in order to rest your weary head on those final 2 words."

I think that translates into assuming that because I am a theist I mean "God is real" or something similar. You are quite within your rights to make up whatever you want with those two words. People have been for thousands of years.

 

Or does it mean putting aside the thousnads of years of turmoil generated by" God is?"

One thing always bothers me about the whole "Religion causes evil" argument. It is similar to the argument from probability in that it shares the same deficiencies IMO. Fundy Utilitarians experience the same problem.

I think that evil is overdetermined in this world (and don't get all thingy about the word "Evil". It is as much a philosophical term as it is a theistic term. Evil is roughly equivalent to pain and misery etc.). If, and I mean if, religion was the cause of all the pain and misery throughout the ages, (the inquisitions etc) then the abscence of religion should eliminate the evil caused by it. Is that how the argument goes?

Anyway, consequentionalist approaches suck and I am rambling. Lol.

 

I was simply say that it's much easier to stop wrestling with the complexities of a universe I think we will never and can never understand with out little brains and 5 terrestrial senses and to simply cling to those 2 words like a rock in raging sea.

God is.

Except that apparently, god isn't. I can't put aside all the conjecture, the difficulties, the doubts, the contradictions and say: God is. 

When I read your post I thought, Jumbo must have enjoyed writing that. All the challenge and trauma and confusion and doubt put to one side in 2 small words. And it's a lovely idea. But that doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jumbo1410 wrote: Bob, I'm

jumbo1410 wrote:

 

Bob, I'm not sure if you are awrae of it, but you begin by saying one thing:

Quote:
There are many propositions which we can be 100% certain about:

And then contradict yourself:

Quote:
Even those statements could almost conceivably be wrong...Propositions about the nature of propositional statements are always logically problematic

Surely it can be only one or the other? If something is 100% certain, how can it conceivably be wrong at all? Or even considered problematic? I get the feeling you are hedging your bet - bordelining on an informal fallacy.

Of course - I anticipated you picking up on that. Note I did say 'almost conceivably'...

We really need to categorize degrees of certainty. Dan Dennett uses the term Vanishing to refer to the reciprocal of his VAST ( Very much larger than ASTronomical quantities ), subsets whose possibiity is much smaller than any 'reasonable' level.

'Conceivably' is a limitation too, it implies tying the possibilities to the very finite capabilities of our own reasoning and imagination. I think I would be referring to possibilities which are NOT 'conceivable', but still possible, although Vanishingly so.

Quote:

In philosophy, there are arguments both for and against 100% certainty "propositions". These statements are usually along the lines of "self evident truths", if such a thing does exist. For example, the statement "No circle is a square" seems to be self evident and true, meaning that it does not need to be supported by other statements to make it true. However, some philosophers think that even this is special pleading - that every proposition needs supporting through other statements. If they are right, then there truly are no 100%'s at this point.

"No circle is a square" - very poor choice, complete category error. You really are a shallow thinker .

That is a simple contradiction - the definitions of the terms 'square' and 'circle' explicitly exclude an object meeting both descriptions.

But you are just talking philosophy, so it can be safely ignored as just playing with words.

Quote:

Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, I hardly think that the concept of self evidence extends to almost anything other than the most simple of statements.

With respect to propositions (transcending linguistics), the burden of proof for using the word "propositions" instead of statements, premises or sentences, remains with the proponent.

I don't mean to be rude or provoke argument, but as I said before, the more I learn the more there is to learn, and the less I end up knowing. Either discussion about meaning are relevant, or they are not. If it is a matter of degree, then it is relative. Unless we are to abandon all knwoledge, what hope have we got?

Checking on formal definitions, I guess I should have said 'premises' rather than 'propositions'.

I didn't go into "self-evident" truths, I would agree they can be problematic.

A point I can add is that there are at least three categories of even a formally valid logical statement - TRUE, FALSE, and UNDECIDEABLE.

The latter applies to classics like "This sentence is false", or "The barber shaves everyone who doesn't shave himself - who shaves the barber?".

So even logic has to carefully check its premises for such circularity and self-reference. Closely related to the Göedel paradox.

Matters of degree are not equivalent to being relative. Accepting that many things are not black-and-white is a prerequisite for being able to get beyond Classic Metaphysics and other ancient fallacies. First rule: shoot Plato.

Maybe there is still hope for you to achieve enlightenment, keep trying.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


jumbo1410
Theist
Posts: 166
Joined: 2009-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Good reply, I would say I

Good reply, I would say I agree with most of what you say for once. Yes, I am talking philosophy, and yes I may concede that it is quite irrelevant - but that is half the fun if you ask me lol.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm... jumbo1410

Hmmm...

jumbo1410 wrote:

Science and religion have always fascinated me. Two very amazing topics indeed.

I'm not sure if it is this site or I am just getting old, but both topics are getting more and more difficult.

TBBT does not posit a singularity.

Measurement is relative.

Time was invented.

Infinty is infinitely complex.

 

God is.

 

 

Knowing proves nothing, and knowing nothing is bliss. But proving nothing is truly knowing.

 

Are you 100% certain of that?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.