GOD and the black hole

[gsmoove23]

Since this seems to be a thread for random questions of religion how about this one.

Adam and Eve, thrown out of the Garden of Eden, bereft of the presence and the light of God. On that day the sin of Adam is created or whatever and every individual has this original sin in him.

Now I don't know about you guys but from the earliest days I can remember I have had a sense of being unsatisfied. There's always something missing, never have I been completely happy, I always need one more cookie or one more screw. Am I the only one that feels this, the impression I've had is that everyone feels this to some degree. What if that missing part in all of us (if it is in all of us) is the effect of the absence of the direct presence of God, its always seemed to me that the language in the Bible addresses this absence. Perhaps thats the black hole in our lives. What if the sin in all of us is akin to the acting out of children who weren't given attention by their parents.

BTW I'm atheist.

[Japher]

Your weird

[gsmoove23]

My deepest thoughts expressed and thats what I get? Excuse me while I climb back into my hole.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
A scientist should believe in the possibility of there actually being a God.

Such a thing is irrelevant to a scientist. The existence of God doesn't matter in science. The presence of an omnipotent being doesn't in anway change the basic mechanics of the universe and how things work.

Lack of belief in God will in no way harm a scientist's results when it comes to experimentation. It is not a factor in theory (can you think of anyone being satisfied with a theory where a part of it says "Then God does some magical stuff here..."?). It's simply not important to science.

Now, I can see where belief in God will lead to bad science. Fundamentalists have been using shoddy science for years to promote an agenda of Creationism that is laughably bad in the face of scientific method. Attempting to use science to somehow prove (or disprove) God is an exercise in folly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Excellent thread , proof positive that constructive discussion arises in the OT

GSmoove- I'll try to answer your questions by refuting Boris when he says that there is no proof of a magical God.

Starting from the Gospel of John:

24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.

25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Jesus does not say that one must believe in Him without checking the evidence, but rather challenges Thomas to use his hands and test for himself.

However, we do not have the luxury of a physical encounter with the Lord, as Thomas and the rest of the Apostles had. Instead, there are 2 ways in which God reveals Himself to man today, through General Revelation and Special Revelation.

General Revelation is the evidence of our senses, uncovered through scientific inquiry and our own experiences. One testimony, is the necessary conditions to produce life here on Earth. These conditions include, among many others, the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the distance from the Sun, the composition of the atmosphere, the tilt of the Earth's axis producing seasons. Even the ratio of the 4 fundamental forces, if altered slightly, can prevent higher lifeforms from developing, or the formation of the Earth.

Your own experiences, your longing for something beyond the ordinary is also part of General Revelation. If we did not long, would we look? We know that we need something, and we know something is out there, but we do not know what it is, or where we can find it.

The purpose of Special Revelation is to fill this need, to teach us about the nature of God. We cannot find this anywhere else. Special Revelation consists of the inspired books of the Bible, and for the person of Jesus Christ, the Gospels.

For those who doubt, again we are encouraged to test. The Bible is a more reliable document than any other historical record of its time period, because there are more and older copies preserved. Even the exploits of Caesar were recorded around 80 years after they occurred, compared to the Gospels, which were written between 30-50 years after the death of Christ.

The Gospels contain much more evidence than I can post here as to the existence of God through the person of Jesus Christ. Gsmoove, if you are sincere as to your desire, look here. You will find the answers you are looking for.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Excellent thread , proof positive that constructive discussion arises in the OT

GSmoove- I'll try to answer your questions by refuting Boris when he says that there is no proof of a magical God.
.

Uh, ok...where was the proof?

Quoting the Bible doesn't prove anything. There is no scientific evidence of God's existence, and science flatly contradicts the Bible in numerous circumstances. It has, in fact, proven that the Bible cannot be taken literally.

The Bible is remarkably unsubstantiated in many regards. It is a good source of some history, but any of that history is verfied by other documentary sources from the period. Any of it that isn't substantiated by such is questionable. At any rate, there is nothing in the annals of history/archaeology/anthropology/biology/physics/etc. that proves the existence of God. Substantiating a historical event in the Bible doesn't prove God exists. It only shows the event happened, and someone wrote it down and maybe ascribed some divine meaning to it. Who knows?

General Revelation is the evidence of our senses, uncovered through scientific inquiry and our own experiences. One testimony, is the necessary conditions to produce life here on Earth. These conditions include, among many others, the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the distance from the Sun, the composition of the atmosphere, the tilt of the Earth's axis producing seasons. Even the ratio of the 4 fundamental forces, if altered slightly, can prevent higher lifeforms from developing, or the formation of the Earth.

Doesn't prove a thing, I'm afraid. You seem to be saying the odds of the Earth even existing are small, therefore there must be a God. That's a huge logical fallacy. Especially since, given the absolute vastness of the universe, the odds really are 100% that such conditions would exist to create what his here today. Our very existence is proof it is possible. It is not proof it was wrought divinely.

Your own experiences, your longing for something beyond the ordinary is also part of General Revelation. If we did not long, would we look? We know that we need something, and we know something is out there, but we do not know what it is, or where we can find it.

The purpose of Special Revelation is to fill this need, to teach us about the nature of God. We cannot find this anywhere else. Special Revelation consists of the inspired books of the Bible, and for the person of Jesus Christ, the Gospels.

Again, this proves nothing. Intellectual curiousity or desire for spiritual fulfillment is not proof of God. Neither is a real sense of "My heart tells me I'm right, so it must be so!" As I mentioned, people of all religions and spiritualities say this, as to many atheists. They can't all be right. To say one is absolutely right, the others all wrong, in the face of no evidence to support it is arrogance.

If you feel moved by the Bible and want to make it an example for your life, that's fine. Please do what you feel is right. But don't pretend it's evidence of anything it is not. It is only evidence that you have faith in one of the thousands of spiritual paths.

More importantly, leave it out of science.

[Zkribbler]

A brief explanation of black holes.

Singularities
When the sun burns out, it will turn into a ball of nuclear ash. A black dwarf. No biggie...a hazard to interstellar travel is all.

But, if the sun was twice as big as it is (2 solar masses), when it burnt out, the strength of its gravitational pull would be enough to drive the electrons into their nuclei, where they would combine with protons to form neutrons. Presto, a neutron star (aka pulsar).

But, if the sun were 3 solar masses, the collapse would continue as the very matter of the star was driven into itself and the star would shrink down until it measures 0 x 0 x 0. A singularity. Lots of mass, no volume.

Event horizons
One thing Einstein realized about gravity is that it works exactly like accelleration. If you're in a closed room, you can do no experiment by which you could tell if you were held to the floor because of gravity or because the room was accellerating upwards.

Because a singularity is an infinitely dense structure, its gravitation field is immense. The pull of its gravity exceeds the speed of light. Thus, if you were in the vicinity of a singularity with a flashlight, pointed the flashlight away from the singularity, and turned the flashlight on, the light from the flashlight would fall back into the singularity.

As you travel farther away from the black hole, the pull of gravity decreases. At some distance, the pull of gravity exactly equals to speed of light. This distance is the same in every direction from the singularity, i.e. it mathematically forms a "sphere" around the singularity. The light from any event which happens within this sphere will not escape. It is below the "event horizon." Events which happen above the event horizon will be seen because light can escape.

(The above explanation is an oversimplification, but it explains things to people who don't know what these terms mean.)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
So a scientist CAN except thing that cannot be seen?

Sure.

Nobody can see gravity, right?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
General Revelation is the evidence of our senses, uncovered through scientific inquiry and our own experiences. One testimony, is the necessary conditions to produce life here on Earth. These conditions include, among many others, the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, the distance from the Sun, the composition of the atmosphere, the tilt of the Earth's axis producing seasons. Even the ratio of the 4 fundamental forces, if altered slightly, can prevent higher lifeforms from developing, or the formation of the Earth.

That's the strong Anthropic Principle, which doesn't prove anything. We exist, therefore the condition here must be conducive to our existence. D'oh.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Your own experiences, your longing for something beyond the ordinary is also part of General Revelation. If we did not long, would we look? We know that we need something, and we know something is out there, but we do not know what it is, or where we can find it.

Suppose this is true. This does not lend more weight to Christianity than to Bob, the Giant Banana, the 10-foot Hare, Umguf the Invisible Pink Unicorn with Purple Polka Dots, Zeus, Odin, Ra, the Celestial Emperor, and a whole host of other gods.

Originally posted by obiwan18
The purpose of Special Revelation is to fill this need, to teach us about the nature of God. We cannot find this anywhere else. Special Revelation consists of the inspired books of the Bible, and for the person of Jesus Christ, the Gospels.

Just to let you know that the bible was compiled by the Church in 397 CE (IIRC). There are some differences between Catholic and Protestant bibles. Why? Why, for example, that the Gospel of Thomas isn't included?

Originally posted by obiwan18
For those who doubt, again we are encouraged to test. The Bible is a more reliable document than any other historical record of its time period, because there are more and older copies preserved.

Which time period? The OT or the NT? Clearly the New Testament has no historical significance. Just because a book is textually accurate doesn't mean it is also factually accurate.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Even the exploits of Caesar were recorded around 80 years after they occurred, compared to the Gospels, which were written between 30-50 years after the death of Christ.

You are assuming there was a Jesus of Nazareth. The internal consistencies of the bible, particularly the inconsistencies among the Sypnotic Gospels, and between the Sypnotic Gospels and Paul's writings, cast some serious doubts on this point.

[monkspider]

Everyone will discover God once again, whether or not it occurs in this lifetime matters less.

[Ben Kenobi]

You seem to be saying the odds of the Earth even existing are small, therefore there must be a God. That's a huge logical fallacy.

-Boris

General Revelation does not prove that God exists. Nowhere do I say this. Ascribing the creation of the Earth to chance is like a poker game with 5 straight royal flushes off the draw. Either you are just extremely lucky or cheating. If you were the other player what would you assume? That 5 royal flushes is just luck?

"Clearly the New Testament has no historical significance"

Urban Ranger

My intention to defend the historical accuracy of the Gospels is not to say that the Gospels are the true account. All I said is that the Gospels are just as accurate if not more than any other historical records we have. To reject the Gospels without examining them, you must reject all history that we have. Are you willing to do this? Examine the Gospels, and then we can hash out whether this is a valid account.

"Suppose this is true. This does not lend more weight to Christianity than to Bob, the Giant Banana, the 10-foot Hare, Umguf the Invisible Pink Unicorn with Purple Polka Dots, Zeus, Odin, Ra, the Celestial Emperor, and a whole host of other gods. "

Urban Ranger

General revelation will not get you to Christianity. Nowhere do I say this. Only the Gospels will do so. All of these other gods are an attempt to fill this spiritual void.

"There are some differences between Catholic and Protestant bibles. Why? Why, for example, that the Gospel of Thomas isn't included?"

-Urban Ranger

This issue is with inspiration. Catholics believe that the OT Apocryphal books are inspired, while Protestants believe that they are not. The Gospel of Thomas is not considered to be inspired by either. ALL Christian denominations believe that the Gospels are inspired, and those are the only books under question.

"The internal consistencies of the bible, particularly the inconsistencies among the Sypnotic Gospels, and between the Sypnotic Gospels and Paul's writings, cast some serious doubts on this point."

Where, what passages, etc. I am perfectly willing to hash out these inconsistencies. Show me which ones are problematic fo you.

[Ramo]

General Revelation does not prove that God exists. Nowhere do I say this. Ascribing the creation of the Earth to chance is like a poker game with 5 straight royal flushes off the draw. Either you are just extremely lucky or cheating. If you were the other player what would you assume? That 5 royal flushes is just luck?

As UR mentioned, one can ascribe this "luck" to the anthropic principle. Only in universes, solar systems, and planets such as ours can these questions actually be asked, so nothing is really proven. The simple fact that we occupy certain specialized locations in space and time doesn't demonstrate anything.

[monkspider]

One of the main problems with organized religion at present is the dogma that paralyzes most religious establishments to utter complacency. There is no spirtual growth in thoughtlessly accepting whatever is the currently acceptable dogma at the time. Therefore, organized religion has largely become so many fetters to an individual's greater spiritual development. Ergo, the dogma that forms the crux of both the fundamentalist and the reactionary atheist's arguements both lie on a fallacy. To quote Shakespeare:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark - Act I. - Scene 5.
Greater understanding of God comes from within the soul, rather than from a priest. The arguement of whether or not certain verses constitute inconsistencies is irrelevent. God reveals the truth to all of those who actively seek it out.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
General Revelation does not prove that God exists. Nowhere do I say this. Ascribing the creation of the Earth to chance is like a poker game with 5 straight royal flushes off the draw. Either you are just extremely lucky or cheating. If you were the other player what would you assume? That 5 royal flushes is just luck?

While Ramo answered this, I'd also point out that you haven't given the odds of Earth's existence. How do you know it is extreme luck? How do you know the odds against it are so great? Do you have a source?

Hundreds of billions of galaxies.
Each with hundreds of billions of stars.

The sheer vastness of that makes the odds that the conditions for life arising somewhere within that vastness very likely (assuming there is a chance at all of such a thing happening, which we know to be the case through the Anthropic principle).

[Ramo]

Reactionary atheist? That's an interesting combination of words...