Theological Explanations for Black Holes?

[Albert Rose]

Not all religious persons will accept that black holes exist. But there have to be some who do, right? So how do they explain the existence of black holes? What is the purpose of the black hole, from a theological standpoint? Angel condominiums?

[Homer]

God's plan of physics for his creation in perfect working order?

--Tim

[DrMatrix]

I'm confused. What is the theological explanation for gravity? Magnetism?

Black holes are predicted by scientific theory. What has theology got to do with that?

What is the theological explanation for the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe? Ever hear of Galileo and what happened to him?

There is no theological explanation for black holes that I am aware of. And I wouldn't expect theology to have one any more than I would expect theology to explain why the earth is not the center of the universe.

I think you are looking for an explanation in the wrong place.

[Chronos]

I don't see why any religion would have any trouble with the notion of black holes. If nothing else, they'd make for pretty effective Hells.

[SPOOFE]

Well, jeez, what's the theological explanation of quarks? Or tunneling? Or the Republican party? (Wait, don't answer that last one)

Face it, religions can't even figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... a black hole would have them stumped quicker than the plot of Mission: Impossible.

Then again, it would be an interesting question to ask the Pope.

[Abe]

Posted by Dr.Matrix
Black holes are predicted by scientific theory. What has theology got to do with that?

Shame on you and everyone else for vastly underestimating the capacities of fundamentalist nuts! Fundamentalists will latch on to any concept at all and then interpret it in any way that fits with their beliefs. Read on.

Abe's Argument of the Week

I have something interesting for you guys on the topic of black holes and religion. From what I know this is not at all a popular argument, but if you have already come across it, apologies.

A black hole is a theoretical object predicted by phyiscs that is incredibly dense and heavy. It consists of a central singularity, which is a single massive point of zero volume and infinite density, and a surrounding event horizon, which can be considered a black hole's surface. The acceleration due to gravity of a black hole is enormous, so that even electromagnetic radiation (including light) cannot escape from it once it crosses into the event horizon (because escape velocity inside the event horizon is greater than light, and nothing goes faster than light).

WOM is a purely hypothetical philosophical concept and stands for Without Output Machine, or in other words a perfect energy sink. No matter how much work you throw into the WOM, there will never be any output.

It's easy to see how the concepts of black holes and WOMs could be lumped together. After all, everything (energy/mass) you lob into the event horizon of a black hole is sucked in, and the black hole just sits there and does nothing except absorb input. This nice ditzy associative breakthrough is ruined by the fact that quantum mechanics predicts that black holes do produce output. They certainly output X-rays, and we have observed them.

WOMs are impossible philosophical constructs. However, we are now certain about the existence of black holes. We are also certain that black holes radiate energy. Unfortunately, invalidating knowledge has never stopped a dedicated fundamentalist.

Anyone who recognizes the existence of black holes and who associates them with WOMs is also likely to start thinking about Without Input Machines, or WIMs. The only (I'm aware of) remotely credible WIM that has been suggested is, of course, God.

You can see where this is leading. Religious nuts will foam at the mouth as they equate WOM (impossible objects) with black holes (which have been verified by science). They will gnash their teeth as they take the scientific evidence for black holes to mean that the diametric opposite of a WOM, being the WIM, is also likely to exists. And the only possible WIM is God.

To make a long story short, black holes provide arguments for the existence of God in that false-premise flawed-argument non-sequitur kind of way dear to fundamentalist freaks.

[Liberal]

Next thing ya know, someone'll ask the scientific explanation for wisdom and goodness.

Maybe we could reproduce them in a laboratory using that tautology-based question-begging self-referential kind of method dear to arrogant geeks.

[Amedeus]

Oh look, A fundie. Never seen one in person before. Lets discect it and see how it works. :)

[Abe]

Posted by Libertarian
Next thing ya know, someone'll ask the scientific explanation for wisdom and goodness.

Might want to catch up on some reading before your next joke.

Maybe we could reproduce them in a laboratory using that tautology-based question-begging self-referential kind of method dear to arrogant geeks.

Something bothering you? If you are attacking me or the argument I presented above state your problem and save the puerile sarcastic device of imitative expression. My closing sentence is a contribution to an argument; there is nothing remotely similar in your feeble and inapplicable imitation.

[Liberal]

Me, a fundie? :D

I didn't know we were supposed to be arguing or attacking fundies ("fundamentalist freaks") in GQ.

Maybe this is a (not so) Great Debate.

[Abe]

Posted by SPOOFE
Then again, it would be an interesting question to ask the Pope.

I wonder if he would look at you blankly and ask "who put these strange notions in your head!?" From what I have read, the Pope seems pretty cool with the sciences. He has no objections to most of the major cosmological theories, including the Big Bang.

[CalMeacham]

OK -- now I gotta put on my "fair guy" hat and wade into this.

Just because someone is religious -- ecven intensely religious -- doesn't mean that they don't accept science. Lotta Jesuits are and were scientists. Lotta devout scientists of various creeds out there. To most people, modern physics isn't incompatible with a life of Faith. So if you're asking what they say about how black holes work, in most cases it's the same way other people say they work. (I'm sure you'll find a residuum of people with eccentric views.)

If you're asking why black holes are there you have an entirely different question, and it's one that you can argue physics doesn't explain, so the theologians can spin their theories without contradiction or stepping out of the bounds of their own discipline.

And "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" has been covered by the Master already.

[Some Guy]

I thought everyone knew this. If your entire spaceship crew is Good and True, and you can fly directly through that angel-shaped hole in the center, you get into heaven. Conversely, if you're an evil zombie-manufacturing despot, you just end up eternally fused with your robot.

:: ignores the collective groan from bad-movie fans everywhere ::

[Duck Duck Goose]

Originally posted by Amedeus
Oh look, A fundie. Never seen one in person before.

And I still don't see one in this thread. Who you referring to, exactly? Abe's post was clearly tongue-in-cheek anti-Fundie. Libertarian? Really? I had no idea.

Yo, Abe, I don't think Lib was addressing you, but the OP.

Hey, Albert Rose, do you actually know any Fundamentalists who disbelieve in the existence of black holes, or are you just tossing out a "fer instance"?

[Chronos]

Obligatory physics nitpick:

Quoth Abe:
This nice ditzy associative breakthrough is ruined by the fact that quantum mechanics predicts that black holes do produce output. They certainly output X-rays, and we have observed them.Both true statements, but unrelated. The radiation predicted by Quantum Mechanics, Hawking radiation, is a miniscule trickle which has never been detected. For a normal-sized black hole, it'd be equivalent to the radiation produced by an object at a temperature of a millionth of a degree above absolute zero, which is pretty small, considering that the cosmic background radiation 9the temperature of the Universe, so to speak) is nearly three degrees above zero.

The x-rays that we observe from things like Cygnus X-1 don't actually come from the black hole itself, but from stuff just outside of the black hole, falling in.

The flaw in the argument you cite isn't so much the WOM, since black holes are a pretty good approximation to that. In fact, the more input you put into a black hole, the less output you'll get. The flaw is assuming that the existance of a WOM implies a WIM.

[bughunter]

Come On!

Since singularities are a finite mass in zero volume, Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero, just to prove to mathematicians that He's omnipotent!

[toadspittle]

Originally posted by AlbertRose
Not all religious persons will accept that black holes exist.

Cite?

I think some of the confusion in this thread (certainly in my reading of it) may stem from the fact that I've never encountered a fundamentalist, etc., who has denied the existence of/explanation for black holes on religious grounds.

I've heard people dispute the big bang, age of the universe, proposed planetary formation theories, etc., but not black holes. Perhaps a link to some anti-black-hole rant on a web page?

[Triskadecamus]

See, God demonstrates the answers to all our stupid questions whether we understand them, or not. Black holes are the answer to the often repeated stupid question: "Can God make a rock so big he cannot pick it up?"

So, please stop asking that, OK?

[Amedeus]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Me, a fundie? :D

I didn't know we were supposed to be arguing or attacking fundies ("fundamentalist freaks") in GQ.

Maybe this is a (not so) Great Debate.

You barked, I barked back. Maybe I misunderstood some deep and witty humor in your post, but it seemed to me that you were insulting science. (Oh so, yet not so subtle)

Ahh here it is. Pit material in the GQ area. Tsk, Tsk:


Maybe we could reproduce them in a laboratory using that tautology-based question-begging self-referential kind of method dear to arrogant geeks.


Watch out, Lib is on a crusade against science.

[Lumpy]

If I were a fundy, I would equate black holes with the fallen angels. But I'm not.

[Albert Rose]

originally posted by Duck Duck Goose
Hey, Albert Rose, do you actually know any Fundamentalists who disbelieve in the existence of black holes, or are you just tossing out a "fer instance"?

Two religious teenagers and I had a discussion about this. They're bright kids, not fundies. The three of us believe in the existence of black holes, and one of the youngins was peeved about a fellow church member's opinion that black holes don't exist.

In other words, I have only teenage hearsay to back up my claim that "Not all religious persons believe that black holes exist." That's not enough in a real debate, so I can't start one. I'd better retract the claim.

My question is more along the lines of "how could these black holes be explained from a theological standpoint?" Maybe I should just ask a local minister, priest, rabbi or Buddhist.

originally posted by DrMatrix
Black holes are predicted by scientific theory. What has theology got to do with that?
This is as good of an answer as I imagine anyone could give. I'm curious, though, as to why God would want to put a black hole somewhere. Any ideas? Or am I, as DrMatrix pointed out, looking for an explanation in the wrong place?

[Terminus Est]

Originally posted by AlbertRose
I'm curious, though, as to why God would want to put a black hole somewhere. Any ideas?
It's simple, really. Black holes, like fossils, were placed there by God to fool the credulous. :rolleyes:

[The Bad Astronomer]

Originally posted by Chronos
Obligatory physics nitpick:

Quoth Abe:
This nice ditzy associative breakthrough is ruined by the fact that quantum mechanics predicts that black holes do produce output. They certainly output X-rays, and we have observed them.Both true statements, but unrelated. The radiation predicted by Quantum Mechanics, Hawking radiation, is a miniscule trickle which has never been detected.

Sure, over, say a few billion or even trillion years. But why be miserly? Look at timescales of 10**40 years, and black holes look rather temporary. Eventually they will all evaporate away, assuming the Universe expands forever. So they are not a WOM, and the argument, like the black holes themselves, fades away.

[Timchik]

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer
Originally posted by Chronos
Obligatory physics nitpick:

Quoth Abe:
This nice ditzy associative breakthrough is ruined by the fact that quantum mechanics predicts that black holes do produce output. They certainly output X-rays, and we have observed them.Both true statements, but unrelated. The radiation predicted by Quantum Mechanics, Hawking radiation, is a miniscule trickle which has never been detected.

Sure, over, say a few billion or even trillion years. But why be miserly? Look at timescales of 10**40 years, and black holes look rather temporary. Eventually they will all evaporate away, assuming the Universe expands forever. So they are not a WOM, and the argument, like the black holes themselves, fades away.

OK, maybe this is a hijack or should be a separate thread, but how exactly does a black hole emit Hawking radition? How does it get past the event horizon?

[Abe]

I want to point out that my post was tongue-in-cheek toward fundamentalist attitudes and not toward religious people in general. Fundamentalists--if they don't reject science--tend to twist any available scientific theory to match their beliefs, and that is what I was making fun of.

I came across the WOM=black hole, WOM requires existence of WIM, WIM=God flawed argument a few times (incidentally, I closed with "false-premise flawed-argument non-sequitur" comment because I recognize that this argument is invalid from its premises to its conclusion).

Chronos, thanks for the clarification regarding X-ray emission, which comes from the accretion disk and similar items. I erred big time in not realizing that the accretion disk should not be considered part of the black hole structure proper, although it is something I knew.

With Hawking radiation, black holes do have output, although it's faint. Certainly in the early stages of a black hole radiation emission is low and particle formation very slow. But as the hole shrinks and its temperature continues to rise, the BH should radiate more strongly.

This also leads me to the death of black holes. Isn't it a reliable theory that when some black holes evaporate to a sufficiently low mass, with an event horizon smaller than a hydrogen atom, the heat they have been building up will have increased to the point (several thousand trillion degrees) that it is released in a massive explosion? In this case a black hole is not a WOM at all, but perhaps we could call it a DOM (delayed output machine).

If a black hole just evaporates to death over the long time mentioned by The Bad Astronomer, although its output is laughably low by any efficiency standards, it is still output. Black holes, however, are definitely the closest objects to WOM we know about.

Still on the subject of WOM, how do we treat gravitational fields of black holes? If the hole exerts a gravitational field, is it output? I imagine the question is tricky because we don't have quantum gravity yet. And how about electromagnetic fields BHs may possess? I remember reading that these fields are fossil fields left over from before the collapse of the star or other matter. But that's a pretty hard concept to understand, I'll be thankful for any clarifications.

[SPOOFE]

[Hijack]

the cosmic background radiation 9the temperature of the Universe, so to speak) is nearly three degrees above zero.

That "three degrees above zero"... is that the Kelvin or Celcius scale? If it's the latter, the universe is warmer than I thought...

[Byejack]

[Liberal]

Amadeus:

Watch out, Lib is on a crusade against science.

Like most of the people here, I'm on a crusade against ignorance, bad logic, and bad science.

Examine the Opening Post:

Not all religious persons will accept that black holes exist.

A gratuitous assertion, a fallacy of exclusion, an amphiboly, and an equivocation. Is this the kind of premise you want to represent the views of science?

But there have to be some who do, right?

An irrelevant induction that moots the first premise, circling back to a tautology. Not all people with curly hair accept that black holes exist, but some do.

So how do they explain the existence of black holes?

And now there's a sudden false dilemma, the implication that religious persons (whatever that means, it was left undefined) might explain black holes differently from nonreligious persons. A more relevant question, that might have followed from the weird premises, is how people (leaving out the red herring descriptive "religious") who don't believe in black holes — not those who do, for cryin' out loud — explain the evidence of their existence.

What is the purpose of the black hole, from a theological standpoint? Angel condominiums?

And the final blow is hysterical in its ignorance. The purpose of a black hole? The purpose?. Theology speaks to the purpose of people and their souls, but not to the purpose of black holes.

The greatest attribute of science, in my opinion, is its tendency toward — in fact, its insistence on — precision, logic, and relevance. The Opening Post is not science, but bigotry and ignorance, to which science gives no quarter.

Got it?

[Abe]

posted by Libertarian
And the final blow is hysterical in its ignorance. The purpose of a black hole? The purpose?. Theology speaks to the purpose of people and their souls, but not to the purpose of black holes.

I am surprised that you analysed the original post, scratching around for inconsistencies, and then spat out this and other blunders.

If, in your opinion, the OP could have used some improvement, it would have been more corteous, productive, and elucidating to point out why and how, rather than insult a number of people taking part in this discussion. When an OP is inappropriate, the response I have seen on this board is usually collaborative, i.e. others will assist in rephrasing or rearranging the question in the interest of discussion. Despite the lack of absolute logical and semantic precision in the OP, people understood its meaning, although some disagreed with the applicability of the issue. So the question is, why get so worked up about it?

[Liberal]

What blunders? What insults? What number of people? Who wrote of "fundamentalist freaks"? Who called their reasoning "false-premise flawed-argument non-sequitur"? Who said someone was on a crusade against science? Not I. Not I. And not I.

This is one of those angels dancing on pin heads questions that never belonged in GQ to start with. I regret that you feel personally insulted from a return shot at your disparagement of fundamentalist freaks. If it will assuage your inexplicable hostility, I will yield an apology.

[Duck Duck Goose]

[carefully stepping around the big pile of steaming manure that seems to be accumulating in this thread]
Hey, you guys, cut it out, people have to walk through here... :rolleyes:

*******************

Why would God create black holes? Well, why would God create anything? Why avocados, why giraffes, why should gravity pull things down instead of shooting them up into the stratosphere? Geez, I dunno.

I would guess that the parents (grandparents?) of those teenagers were merely expressing their disbelief in "things I can't touch or see", the same way some people don't believe we really went to the moon. Don't extrapolate this to mean that all Fundamentalist Christians don't believe in the existence of black holes. The Fundies of my acquaintance don't have any problem with Science Stuff like germ theory and how internal combustion engines work and where babies really come from (hint: the stork does not bring them), and they're happy to leave the tough questions like quantum theory to the Big Brains at MIT and JPL and NASA who seem to think it's important, bless their little pocket-protector hearts.

[Albert Rose]

originally posted by Libertarian
Examine the Opening Post:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all religious persons will accept that black holes exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A gratuitous assertion, a fallacy of exclusion, an amphiboly, and an equivocation. Is this the kind of premise you want to represent the views of science?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there have to be some who do, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An irrelevant induction that moots the first premise, circling back to a tautology. Not all people with curly hair accept that black holes exist, but some do.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So how do they explain the existence of black holes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And now there's a sudden false dilemma, the implication that religious persons (whatever that means, it was left undefined) might explain black holes differently from nonreligious persons. A more relevant question, that might have followed from the weird premises, is how people (leaving out the red herring descriptive "religious") who don't believe in black holes — not those who do, for cryin' out loud — explain the evidence of their existence.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the purpose of the black hole, from a theological standpoint? Angel condominiums?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And the final blow is hysterical in its ignorance. The purpose of a black hole? The purpose?. Theology speaks to the purpose of people and their souls, but not to the purpose of black holes.

The greatest attribute of science, in my opinion, is its tendency toward — in fact, its insistence on — precision, logic, and relevance. The Opening Post is not science, but bigotry and ignorance, to which science gives no quarter.

I've been trying to determine if this is a personal attack on me. I've never seen Libertarian so miffed.

Thanks, Abe, for your rational response.

The OP was confusing and should have been worded as follows: "What do various theologies have to say about black holes?" That's a rather large and open-ended question of fact, which is what I was looking for. Thanks to those of you who have answered my intended question, even though I did a poor job of making it clear.

I think I'm going to e-mail Jack Chick and ask him what he thinks.

[Kalt]

praise the lohhhhhhhhd!

Black holes do not exist, they are merely "mirages" that God makes us see to test our faith. Kinda like dinosaur fossils/bones. They did not exist, they are merely there to test our faith.

Praise jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus!

*fart*

[Abe]

Libertarian, in just a few lines you manage to express more flaws in your reasoning. I really don't want to get bogged down in a side spat but I intend to set the record straight as far as concerns my behaviour.

Posted by Libertarian
What blunders? What insults? What number of people? Who wrote of "fundamentalist freaks"? Who called their reasoning "false-premise flawed-argument non-sequitur"? Who said someone was on a crusade against science? Not I. Not I. And not I.

Blunders: your biggest one was your incorrect definition of theology, which came after you had just finished berating the OP for not defining terms such as religion.

Insults: the closing sentence in your first post on this thread was an insult, not just because you mocked my post with your sarcastic device, but also because you directly implied that I am an "arrogant geek", not to mention that the method in which I presented the argument was not "tautology-based" (although the argument itself, being a fundamentalist one, was) nor was it "question-begging"; my post was "self-referential" only insofar as I did employ humour to announce a curious (and yes, flawed) argument to those here debating related subject matter. You also insulted the OP ("the final blow is hysterical in its ignorance"). Repetitions of "Not I" are weak defence considering the evidence is right here for everyone to see.

As for the crusade comment, I can't speak for others, but your first post here was hostile, confusing, and not terribly endearing, and I can see how it could have been interpreted as anti-science nonsense.

Fundamentalists and their arguments: first, this is not a PC haven for such unacceptable fringe groups as fundamentalists, and their wilder examples of reasoning on these boards are frequently mocked far more than was done in this thread (not to mention Cecil's own comments). Secondly, Fundamentalist ANYTHING is necessarily flawed in reasoning, from Young-Earth Creationists to those people who think disease can be cured only by God and medicine is therefore worthless. If you believe you can invalidate my statement ("Fundamentalists--if they don't reject science--tend to twist any available scientific theory to match their beliefs") please do so reasonably. If you just have a soft spot for fundamentalists, that would explain your outbursts!

this is is one of those angels dancing on pin heads questions that never belonged in GQ to start with.

Black hole questions appear frequently in both GQ and GD. The same goes for questions on religion in general. The theological import of black holes is not, to my knowledge, an established Great Debate. If it does belong in GD, there is still no excuse for your hostility. At any rate, the moderators will make that decision.

I regret that you feel personally insulted from a return shot at your disparagement of fundamentalist freaks

I regret you had to insult me just because I lit a match under a flawed fundamentalist argument and referred to "fundamentalist freaks". Since you use that phrase repeatedly in supporting your position, look up the word "freak". I have no sympathy for fundamentalists of any kind, but I think you will find that "freak" is not such a limited word as you seem to believe, and it is applicable to fundamentalists.

If it will assuage your inexplicable hostility, I will yield an apology.

I hardly think my behaviour is the hostile one, but thanks for the apology. Sorry to have sidetracked from the original point.

[Abe]

Going back to the OP, I have a feeling that black holes are too complicated and have not yet been reviewed by whoever it is that reviews cosmology for religious bodies. Aside from the black hole/WOM/God argument, I haven't come across many other references. So I turned to the Internet to try locate something of use, and here are some results from Google (I wasn't too sure what terms to use in my search):

For an irrational rationalization of fundamentalism, in which the author quickly abandons reason in favour of outrageous cosmological wishful thinking (it's worth a read also because it's an excellent example of how fundamentalists attempt to fit science into beliefs):
http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb97/BiblicalFundamentalsVSReligFund.html

For a discussion on "Darwinism" that contains the interesting reference:
from http://www.christian-faith.com/apologetics-science/dennett.html
the physicist Lee Smolin has proposed that black holes are in effect the birthplaces of offspring universes, in which the fundamental physical constants would differ slightly from those in the parent universe. Since those universes that happened to have the most black holes would leave the most "offspring," the basic Darwinian concepts of mutation and differential reproduction could be extended to cosmology.

The following discusses God, the 6,000 year old world, and black holes, briefly and not soundly:
from http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/1,1183,PTID4859%7CCHID101264%7CCIID149054,00.html
So we know that math supports this theory, but does the Bible? Genesis 1:1 states “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the water.” What if “the formless and empty, darkness over the surface of deep” was the equivalent of a black hole? We can then imagine that God reached into the black hole like a top hat filled with glistening stars and confetti representing planets. He then emptied its contents in the flash of six earth days filling the universe with light and matter.

Although I didn't find anything concrete, I came across several jokes, some of them already mentioned:

- If you can read this you'll soon be in my Event Horizon.
- Black holes are where God is dividing by zero.
- Black holes are where God did nothing, in a *big* way!
- Black holes are the answer to "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?"
- Black hole or bust.
- Don't drive in my event horizon or I'll crush you.
- Black holes are serious phenomena. Just look at the gravity of the situation.
- I brake for black matter (I can picture this on The Bad Astronomer's car bumper)

I eventually got tired of sifting through Web sites on this obscure topic. Anyone else know of a central point more suitable to this search than Google?

Abe

[Liberal]

If this ever gets moved where it belongs, we can discuss it. In the meantime, Duck Duck Goose is right: this is not the place either for little ego squabbles or debates.

The best answer given so far is from Tim, and bears repeating:

[Black holes from a theological standpoint are part of] God's plan of physics for his creation in perfect working order[.]

[DrMatrix]

There was a time when any one who was a scientist, theologian or philosopher was all three. Now the roles are distinct, with some overlap. Science seems to have advanced faster than philosophy or theology. Philosophers are just coping with the notion from relativity that time is not absolute. QM's implication that a particle's properties are not defined until they are observed is still being hashed out in philosophy.

Perhaps, it was a bit harsh for me to mention Galilo. The Catholic Church has admitted that it made a grave error and has made great strides since that time. Hawking said he had an audience with the pope to discuss cosmology. (They did, however, caution him not to delve into the moment of creation.) And I think the Catholic Church has stated that the Big Bang is not inconsistent with their theology.

I don't think the OP is out of line. I just don't think theology has come up with anything regarding Black Holes yet. Then again, I am not concerned with theology.

If you are asking how Bible literalists(sp?) interpret anything regarding science, my feeble mind cannot comprehend the convoluted logic necessary to reconcile science with the literal Bible. Originally posted by Abe
And the only possible WIM is God.Umm. . . How about the Big Bang?
__________________
Show Signature: Not checked for this post.

[Abe]

But Tim's answer is a flavour of generic theological doctrine that can fit as reply to any and all questions we ask, including

Why am I posting on this board?
Why do I have so much work on my desk?
Why was there a Big Bang X billion years ago?
Why are fish such good swimmers but poor cyclists?

Answer: because it is evidence of perfect working order as God intended it. We can work towards that answer in any number of ways, but there is no reasoning behind it.

What we need to find out is if any religion or sect disputes the existence of black holes, and then find out why, from a theological point of view. Also valuable would be official positions (if any) of religious organization as regards black holes (whether they accept their existence or not). I was not able to find these items, but perhaps someone who knows more about religion or Internet searches will have better luck.

I suspect that the majority of institutions simply do not have a position, although the WOM/Black Hole/God argument I presented earlier is a (flawed) argument I have encountered a couple of times.

[Liberal]

At Abe's behest, I searched Google for "Christian apologetics black holes", and turned up quite a few references to Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D., President and Director of Research of Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org), based in Pasadena, CA. His credentials arguably qualify him as the consumate scientist/Christian.

As a scientist, he holds a B.Sc. (1967) in Physics from the University of British Columbia, an M.Sc. (1968) in Astronomy and a Ph.D. (1973) in Astronomy, both from the University of Toronto. He was Vancouver's Royal Astronomical Society's Director of Observations at age seventeen, the youngest ever. At Cal-Tech, he did post graduate work on quasars as part of a National Research Council of Canada fellowship. He was a Research Fellow in radio astronomy there for five years. He has written technical articles, including "Verification of Radio Variability of the Galaxy PKS 0048-09" in Nature, "Variable Radio Source Structure on a Scale of Several Minutes of Arc" in The Astrophysical Journal, and "The High Frequency Radio Spectra of Secondary Standard Sources" in collaboration with E. R. Seaquist in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. He holds memberships in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Astronomical Society, the American Institute of Physics, and the American Scientific Affiliation. He regularly debates against "scientists" from the Institute for Creation Research. He does not believe in a young universe or a fiat creation of an intact cosmos.1

But he does believe in the Bible's Genesis story as a metaphorical creation account. As a Christian, he is the Minister of Apologetics at Sierra Madre Congregational Church. He is a lecturer in the Simon Greenleaf Institute of Apologetics at Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, CA. He has written way too many papers on science and faith issues to list here, and he has written numerous such books, including The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator, now in its second edition, and Beyond the Cosmos: What Recent Discoveries in Astronomy and Physics Reveal About the Nature of God. He holds a membership in the Evangelical Theological Society.2

Given his credentials, one might reasonably address the question of how "[religious persons] explain the existence of black holes" and "the purpose of a black hole, from a theological standpoint" as asked in the Opening Post.

In Mathematical Breakthroughs Establish God's Extra-Dimensional Might (http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/95q4faf/95q4dmsn.html), an article written Chronos-style for both nonscientists and nontheologians, Ross deals with black holes in their massless state, i.e., strings. In a section called, "Theological Significance," he says

An obvious theological implication from string theory is that the Creator of the cosmos must have the capacity to operate in at least as many dimensions as are needed to explain the existence of the cosmos--plus one. String theory tells us that the universe required ten. Therefore, the Creator possesses the ability to operate in a minimum of eleven (the early cosmos's ten plus one) dimensions.

and cites Stephen W. Hawking and George F. R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, as well as Hawking, Stephen and Penrose, Roger, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London as research that places "the cause of the universe outside its space-time dimensions".

Another conclusion he draws in the same article is

Another theological implication of the space-time theorem of general relativity is that the ten dimensions required by string theory must have a beginning. A beginning means they are all created, which implies that the Creator has the capacity to create space-time dimensions at will. He can bring them into existence any time He wants and, as the book of Revelation suggests, take them out of existence any time He wants.

He goes on to suggest that biblical paradoxes are not necessarily evidence against God, but rather merely evidence that God is supernatural.

In A Brief Look at A Brief History of Time (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/brieflook.html), he offers a critique of Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, saying that Hawking's "chapters on black holes are perhaps the most lucid one will find on that subject anywhere." But he criticizes those he calls "loopholers", scientists, including Hawking at one time, who seek a philosophical out for what he believes are implications of singularity theorems. He describes Hawking as both a brilliant man and a bit of a waffler, showing that in establishing a loophole in the guise of quantum gravity, Hawking merely displaced, rather than dispelled, the question of origin.

As physicist Frank Tipler has pointed out, Hawking may simply be substituting, unawares, one kind of singularity for another, more specifically a classical singularity of general relativity for a quantum singularity:

A quantum universe [such as Hawking proposes] ... necessarily consists of not just one four-dimensional sphere, but rather the infinity of spheres of all possible radii. However, since it is meaningless for the radius of a sphere to be less than or equal to zero, a four-dimensional sphere of zero radius forms a boundary to Hawking's universe.... He [Hawking] has eliminated the classical singularity—the beginning of time—only to have it re-appear as the "beginning" to the space of all possible four-spheres. — Ibid (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/brieflook.html)

He notes that, eventually, Hawking admitted the necessary relation between the singularity and the boundary conditions.

If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there would be no singularities in the history of the universe in imaginary time…. The universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. when one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.

... Only if [we] lived in imaginary time would [we] encounter no singularities.... In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down. — Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p.139.

Other articles may be found on the subject at Dr. Ross's website (http://www.reasons.org).

In short, Tim's answer is still the best at describing the general nonscientific theolgian's view of black holes as just fitting in with everything else in the universe, which, as Abe points out, is ubiquitously applicable. But Dr. Ross suggests, as a scientist, the specific implication of a hyperdimensional or omnidimensional attribute of God.

That is about as close as I can get to a GQ answer to this Opening Post. I hope it suffices.

1Dr. Hugh Ross, Biography (http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.html)
2Ibid (http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.html)

[Chronos]

[Moderator watch ON]

Welcome to GD. Sorry it's taken me so long.

[Moderator watch OFF]

Meanwhile, I feel obliged to point out that the statement from the OP
Not all religious persons will accept that black holes exist.is a perfectly rational statement, which is almost guaranteed to be true. All that is required for it to be true is for there to exist one single "religious person" (whatever that means) who doesn't accept the existence of black holes, and I'm sure that there's at least one such person.

As for "output" of black holes: The electromagnetic and gravitational fields of a black hole aren't output in the sense of output energy, which is what seems relevant here. OK, strictly speaking, they can output energy, but only in the amounts allowed by the Hawking process. On the other hand, how about we consider the black hole itself as "output"? If we neglect Hawking radiation, then a BH basically eats anything you give to it, and gets bigger in the process. The reverse of this would be something which starts off big, and then diminishes as it produces output. Nobody would consider a disposable flashlight, say, to be a WIM, much less to be God.

Yet another possible purpose for BHs: They might be God's way of ending the Universe. According to some hypotheses, when a black hole finally completely evaporates, it leaves behind a naked singularity. The laws of physics are unpredictable anywhere to the future of a naked singularity, so when a hole finally dies, it would then produce a spherical front, expanding at the speed of light, behind which the Universe would be changed, in a manner unknown to us. Since it expands at the speed of light, there's no way to detect it in advance, so it could be about to hit us in the next thirty seconds, for all we know. Brings new meaning to "you know not the day nor the hour".

[Abe]

Thanks Libertarian for that research. I don't agree with Dr. Ross's reasoning, and I think that his series of arguments require big "assuming that God exists" qualifiers. He also seems very keen to fit a particular religion into physics, which is usually the hallmark of bad thinking. But your research has certainly shown us theological implications of some phenomena and theories normally studied by physicists.

As for DrMatrix's comment, on the eligibility of the Big Bang as a WIM, I am not sure. Firstly, how about quantum fluctuations? I don't think they can be classified as Without Input, and I think the Big Bang's energy sources have been investigated by legions of scientists on similar quantum terms. Secondly, there is a possibility that the Big Bang arose from a collapsed-universe singularity, in which case it was not a WIM but simply a very massive black hole.

[sturmhauke]

Hey I know. God lives in a white hole and Satan lives in a black hole. 'Cause, you know, God is the Creator and Satan is the Destroyer. But Satan can only operate when God lets him, like with Job's family. So they must be able to communicate via a wormhole? Wait, I don't get it...