New on the site: Michi-botA smart assistant on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Black holes

ResponseCategory: FaithBlack holes
A asked 1 year ago

Hi, hello, from what I understand, you studied physics, so I wanted to know if you also understand black guys or is that a field in itself?
I wanted to know if there was a chance that the universe would collapse into itself into a black hole and if there was anything to be done about it?
And I also wanted to connect it to the realm of faith - should I look at this as a "wonder of creation" or is it simply a random phenomenon that just happens without meaning, because let's say the sun has meaning, but black holes are a pretty strange phenomenon that shouldn't happen if someone planned it, right?

Leave a Reply

1 Answer
Michi Staff answered 1 year ago

I understand very little about black guys. It's part of physics, but there are a lot of specializations in physics. To your question, not anytime soon. Don't worry. It depends on Einstein's constant, the exact value of which, as far as I'm aware, is not yet clear.
There is nothing more miraculous than the human body or the structure of a leaf, or even a rock. The wonders of creation are the laws of nature.

A replied 1 year ago

Okay, what is your specialty, if I may ask?
And also regarding the wonders of creation - some of the laws do have an explanation, don't they? Let's say like natural selection, which is something that gradually evolved into more and more complicated laws depending on what was gradually created.

mikyab Staff replied 1 year ago

You can know, but it probably won't tell you anything: quantum phenomena in the solid state (mesoscopic systems).
I don't know what an explanation of the laws of nature means. In what terms would you like to explain them? In terms of more fundamental laws? These are the laws and that's it. Natural selection does not develop the laws of nature. On the contrary, it operates within them. The creatures develop, not the laws.

A replied 1 year ago

That really doesn't mean too much...
So what are you actually saying that the laws themselves are simply defined and we as humans try to describe and understand them, but you don't think there is anything justified, let's say on the part of atheists who say that there is no reason to assume that someone created, coded them in such a different way and right now we have to remain in a state of not knowing until we understand (or don't understand) as if in my opinion it is very logical that there is someone who created or designed and so on. In my opinion, this is a completely rational position because you conclude based on what you know and see. But on the other hand, there is also room for what they say that you don't have to "choose" this option and they prefer to remain in the position of what can be tested, tested and understood and what not will remain a question until if we manage to understand and there is really no reason to conduct ourselves or draw conclusions that change an entire way of life just because it seems logical to me. There is a difference between this being possible and logical and believing in it and even more so to conduct ourselves according to it, which is even stronger than just believing that someone might have created

mikyab Staff replied 1 year ago

I said there is no explanation for the laws of nature. These are facts because that is how it is. Unless there is a law that is not fundamental but derived from another law, but the fundamental laws of nature do not and cannot have an explanation.
The atheists' question is a different question, unrelated to the previous one. This is what is called "the God of the Gaps." At the end of the column that just appeared a few hours ago (on Popper and Rabbi Akiva), I explained why their claim is incorrect. This is a fundamental gap that is not supposed to be closed, and therefore we cannot wait and assume that it will be closed in the future.

A replied 1 year ago

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept (the god of gaps), but in my opinion the central argument is that if we don't know, then we don't know, and we shouldn't assume or propose another solution if it isn't well demonstrated.
They also don't assume that it might be closed in the future, even if things are not understood in the future, their argument still stands because no satisfactory alternative explanation has yet been presented. For them, the fact that we don't know how or if these laws were created (perhaps they are eternal) shouldn't give you the option to put God behind them because there is no explanation. There needs to be much more than just no explanation, that's the argument in my opinion.

mikyab Staff replied 1 year ago

According to this fascinating way of thinking, nothing can be proven by negation. Even if you have proven that X is not true, you might wonder if "not X" is also not true? If explanation B is better than A, that doesn't mean that B should be accepted. Maybe A is true? From here on, all of science and philosophy can be closed.
For example, if you found that two bodies with mass attract each other, you might wonder if two other bodies wouldn't attract each other? Just as the principle of causality cannot be determined in general, so the law of gravity cannot be determined in general.
I already have a wealth of experience with atheistic evasions, more or less elegant, when they meet logical arguments. This is the path of every religious sect. Apologetics is a candle to its feet, and no argument will confuse it. What is most beautiful is that they accuse believers of religious fanaticism and closed-mindedness (not always unjustly, of course). Good luck to us.

A replied 1 year ago

Your way of thinking is no less fascinating... but you're playing a straw man because the logic they offer is not - "If explanation B is better than A, it doesn't mean that B should be accepted." For the sake of the matter, there are explanations and descriptions of the force of gravity, so great, we accept it. It's good enough even though we don't understand everything about it. In contrast, God's explanation, in their opinion, is not enough because not much can be said about it, there is no consistent method, it cannot be measured, examined, it has no effect (does not intervene in the world). It is very different from the force of gravity, which we cannot see but can examine, describe, define, and see its effect on the world. It can even be used in different ways for different purposes, so there is room for acceptance.
God, according to the claim and definitions they set forth, does not meet the criteria to be accepted as an explanation.
And you know what - they also claim something stronger - not only is it not enough to accept it, but even if you accept it, it creates more questions, think about it - another world, another dimension, a whole system, language, so to speak, you have to stop because you are moving from the stage of explanations to the stage of imagination, and I don't think they are big fans of the field...

mikyab Staff replied 1 year ago

I'm really not playing a straw man. My argument is that there is something that created all this goodness (= the world). The alternative is that there is none. The first option is not an explanation but a conclusion. I didn't come to explain anything, but rather it is a conclusion from the fact that there is something complex here and a complex thing did not come into being by itself. The alternative they choose is that there is no explanation and also not to draw the conclusion. This is exactly the move I described above.
But it seems to me that the positions have been clarified and everyone will make a choice.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button