• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Faith in science vs. faith in religion.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Dec 24, 2017.

  1. Paidiske

    Paidiske Clara bonam audax Supporter

    +15,195
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    red-strawberry-hat-wool-beret-girls-winter-wear20667.jpg
    MOD HAT ON
    This thread has had a clean.
    There was far too much flaming and disruptive posting.​


    Now pay attention, because I have been doing far too many of these thread cleans.
    Enough. Stop it.
    If you can't discuss matters courteously and respectfully,
    disengage and put one another on ignore.

    Next time there is a thread like this I will be far less inclined to be lenient,
    and far more inclined to recommend a bunch of bans from this forum.

    I hope that is clear.

    MOD HAT OFF
     
  2. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    +954
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Michael has, from explination within the threads first post, presents how much of science is still based on faith.

    Yes, it is eye opening when you learn of such.

    As another example written well about things in our universe, proof is still lacking and faith is required - even though the greatest of scientists try to make these issues non-faith based. They cannot excape their faith-based dilemma.


    Well hi there, Rebecca. How’s it going?

    First of all, I’m glad you like the show. “How the Universe Works” is a terrific documentary series that I’ve had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought this week’s premiere was especially good. It was called, “Are Black Holes Real?” If you didn’t see it, spoiler alert….no one knows!!!

    It’s true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some cosmologists are now convinced they don’t exist at all, and the race to prove their actuality has become pretty intense. Why? Because so much of what we think we know about the cosmos depends upon them. In other words, the most popular explanations as to how the universe actually works, are based upon the existence of a thing that no one has been able to prove.


    Link:
    Mike Rowe


    rowe-black-hole.jpg

    The greatest of scientists cannot prove what they claim about many things in science. Such is reality.

    Many walk by faith, and tell others they don't. Time to wake up to where you place your faith and what you believe. And how many items you believe are in error, items that do not exist. It is false to call such scientifically real without prove. Faith is to be admitted in what you say exists.
     
  3. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,995
    Atheist
    Having watched that documentary, there's nothing new there, and the idea that black holes may not exist is more semantic quibbling than anything - I guess it makes good pop-sci media hyperbole.

    Black holes with the singularity predicted by General Relativity have always been suspected to be a placeholder for something that doesn't involve a singularity; the singularity is an indication that the extreme physics inside them isn't understood. The observed astronomical objects are called black holes because there are multiple lines of evidence that are consistent with black hole theory (they have observable properties consistent with black hole predictions, singularity or no) and for which there is no more better explanation.

    It was clear from the documentary that faith isn't significant for the physicists involved - they all acknowledged the uncertainties and lack of knowledge about what these exotic objects really are. Krauss said that "Lack of evidence of how black holes work is not lack of evidence of black holes, it's just evidence of lack of understanding". Tremblay said that if asked what he believed, he didn't believe in black holes, he believed in something that behaved like black holes. Stutter said it could be that the objects we identify as black holes aren't really black holes, but if he were to bet, he'd bet on black holes. Freese said she thought they were the simplest explanation, although they have a lot of problems, but that she believes in black holes. Plait said that whatever it is we're seeing, it smells like a black hole, walks like a black hole, it quacks like a black hole - <shrug> it's a black hole.

    It may be worth pointing out that when scientists 'believe' an explanation, it means they think it's the best/most likely/most plausible explanation currently available. It's taken for granted that scientific explanations are provisional.
     
  4. mzungu

    mzungu INVICTUS

    +183
    Atheist
    Married
    I do not have faith in science; I ACCEPT science. Faith belongs in the realms of religion. Likewise I do not believe in Evolution I ACCEPT it.
     
  5. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,995
    Atheist
    Further to Heissonear's documentary quote, here's a brief summary of the black hole evidence:
     
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    You technically accept and "believe" in evolution, just like LCMD proponents accept and believe in a 'big bang', which includes several metaphysical (and shy around the lab) constructs.
     
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    Funny how nothing can supposedly escape an event horizon, but according to BB proponents, the whole universe was once small enough to fit *well* inside of it's event horizon. :)
     
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    That "provisional" aspect typically goes flying out the window when astronomers go on TV and claim to "know" that there was a 'big bang'. There's also nothing particular provisional about LIGO claims involving BH/BH merger claims. It's all based on the assumption that black holes do exist.
     
  9. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,995
    Atheist
    You might be interested in 'black hole cosmology' - the hypothesis that the universe is inside a black hole.



    But the conventional explanation, as I understand it, is that the Schwartzchild assumptions don't apply, because the BB wasn't a hot dense point in space, it was all space, uniformly hot and dense, so there was no centre of gravity, no external vacuum, no place for an event horizon to form, and it was too energetic for coherent gravitational action before expansion had driven it too far outwards.

    [And, of course, for any given observer, the universe still has an event horizon.]
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2018
  10. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,995
    Atheist
    All such claims are implicitly provisional, as already explained.
     
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    It isn't "provisional" when they claim to have "knowledge" of a big bang. It's like a priest claiming to have knowledge of God. They don't claim to observe redshift, they claim to observe expansion.
     
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    The mere existence of concentrated mass/energy means that it caused *curvature*. Even if it was "all space", it would have had an event horizon around at it's edge (wherever that was). Space supposedly doesn't do expansion tricks in our solar system because space expansion is shy around the presence of spacetime curvature, and therefore the whole thing should have imploded.

    Irrelevant.


    Of course there was. The center of gravity would necessarily have been the center of the mass/energy.

    Again, that is utterly irrelevant.

    If there was enough "spacetime" for the mass/energy to form and exist, then the event horizon would have had a place to form and exist, if only at the edge of the mass concentration.

    Special pleading. No amount of energy allows any particle to escape the event horizon, not even a photon.

    It does? Where? It doesn't even have a defined size AFAIK. It could be infinite in size according to mainstream theory.

    The whole "immaculate conception" claim defies every aspect of GR theory. Not only would the event horizon exist if the mass existed, it would have encapsulated the mass/energy regardless of the size of the universe. Even if the whole universe were the size of the mass/energy, it would necessarily have contained a curvature that is consistent with that amount of mass/energy.

    Face it, the LCDM model requires a "miracle" from the moment of "creation".
     
  13. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,995
    Atheist
    All such claims are implicitly provisional, as already explained.
     
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    That's a meaningless disclaimer when an astronomer claims to "know" that a big bang took place, and they claim to "know" that the universe is expanding. They don't "know" these things, they have *faith* in these claims. All they actually "know" is that photon redshift happens.
     
  15. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,995
    Atheist
    There was no 'edge'. A lower-dimensional topological analogy would be the surface of a sphere (if the universe was finite in size - it's generally taken not to be).

    It meant there were no significant density variations to precipitate collapse.

    There was no centre of mass/energy, just as there was no edge. A lower-dimensional topological analogy would be the surface of a sphere (if the universe was finite in size- it's generally taken not to be).

    Without it there could be no event horizon.

    There was no edge - all space was hot, dense, and expanding.

    There was no event horizon.

    The event horizon is per-observer. Read the link I provided.

    Your comments suggest you don't have a basic understanding of the model you're trying to criticize. If you want to criticize, criticize what it actually says with reasonable arguments. Dismissing a straw man version isn't valid criticism.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2018
  16. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,995
    Atheist
    All such claims are implicitly provisional, as already explained.
     
  17. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If it contained mass/energy, it contained curvature, regardless of size.

    It doesn't have to "collapse" in the first place to be stuck inside of it's own event horizon.

    This would be a great example of a "statement of faith". If it has mass, it has a center of that mass. If it has mass, it also has curvature. The concept of an "edge" is ultimately irrelevant.

    What exactly does that statement mean to you? If it's three dimensional "blob", it would have a three dimensional event horizon too.

    Not true. The curvature aspects would apply no matter what.

    In such a case, 'all space' would have been curved in a way that prevented expansion in the first place. The curvature would have prevented expansion.

    There could not have been mass without curvature.

    That doesn't apply to the curvature itself!

    My criticism is perfectly valid. With or without an "outside", the curvature itself is *intrinsic to the mass/energy*! You wouldn't have had any type of "space expansion" and no amount of energy would have overcome all that curvature.
     
  18. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    So let's recap the various LCDM 'statements of faith":

    1. All the mass/energy of the universe was once concentrated to something smaller than a proton.

    2. Nothing, not even spacetime existed *outside* of this tiny object, although nobody can explain how it possibly got there, or got that small without creating a massive spacetime curvature around itself.

    3. There is apparently no event horizon, nor even any spacetime curvature associated with this mass/energy concentration lest the whole thing implode.

    4. In spite of the fact that "space expansion' doesn't happen in the presence of spacetime curvature in the universe now, "space" did magical expansion tricks anyway at the moment of creation in the presence of all that spacetime curvature.

    5. Inflation thingies had something to do with this "space expansion" process.

    6. Adding enough energy to this "smaller than a proton" sized object somehow allows such objects to overcome otherwise insurmountable spacetime curvature.

    7. Dark energy retains constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

    There are *at least* seven different "statements of faith"associated with that particular creation mythology from the very start.
     
  19. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +5,995
    Atheist
    As I've repeatedly told you, it's not my cake, it's a current mainstream model.

    I've explained my understanding of it as simply as I can - and, as I said, if you want to criticize it, do so for what it actually says. If you don't know or don't understand what it says, as your posts suggest, find out what it says from an authoritative source on the model.
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    It's a broken, self-conflicted creation mythology and I have no idea why you attempt to defend it.

    I understand what the model says and I also understand that it is self conflicted and it *directly conflicts* with GR theory from the very first second. The spacetime curvature alone of such a massive object should have prevented "space expansion" from ever happenng. Big bang theory is a totally and completely self conflicted cosmology model!
     
Loading...