,
11 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
If you were delighted and intrigued by the image of M87’s black hole silhouette, you may be stunned to discover that there are people who are deeply skeptical of the existence of black holes and think the whole thing is a fraud… 
Their reasons for disbelief:
1. black holes violate their philosophical comfort zones
2. they suspect a conspiracy by physicists to impose a false worldview on everyone
3. they think physicists are too dumb to realize black holes don’t exist.
1. black holes violate their philosophical comfort zones
2. they suspect a conspiracy by physicists to impose a false worldview on everyone
3. they think physicists are too dumb to realize black holes don’t exist.
It’s illuminating to argue with these skeptics, because the way they argue is reminiscent of the way atheists argue. They “know” black holes don’t exist, because they’ve never seen one. And if there’s even the tiniest probability your argument could be wrong, they won’t concede.
They demand that single “killer” argument or fact that FORCES them to believe, which of course doesn’t exist. So, they are justified in perpetuity, and nothing you can say will make the slightest difference. But that’s an unreasonable standard for belief.
Scientists and others believe black holes exist because of the CUMULATIVE weight of evidence:
- mathematical arguments
- observed behavior of stars and gas
- quasars
- X-ray and radio emission from galaxy centers
- X-ray binaries
- gravitational lensing
- mathematical arguments
- observed behavior of stars and gas
- quasars
- X-ray and radio emission from galaxy centers
- X-ray binaries
- gravitational lensing
Black holes are not only the best explanation for each of these phenomena, but more compellingly, they explain ALL of the evidence. Skeptics may be able to provide (weak) alternatives for each of these evidences, but they don’t have a coherent explanation for all of them.
Do you see where I’m going with this? Atheists likewise demand that single “killer” argument that forces them to believe in God; and because there isn’t one, they’re forever justified in their disbelief.
Their reasons for disbelief:
1. theistic implications violate their philosophical comfort zones
2. they suspect a conspiracy by theists to impose a false worldview on everyone
3. they think theists are too dumb to realize God doesn’t exist.
1. theistic implications violate their philosophical comfort zones
2. they suspect a conspiracy by theists to impose a false worldview on everyone
3. they think theists are too dumb to realize God doesn’t exist.
As with belief in black holes, belief in God is justified not only by each piece of evidence, but by the cumulative weight of evidence…
- the teleological argument
- the ontological argument
- the Kalam cosmological argument
- the ministry and resurrection of Jesus…
- the teleological argument
- the ontological argument
- the Kalam cosmological argument
- the ministry and resurrection of Jesus…
- the moral argument
- personal experience
- consciousness
- near-death and out-of-body experiences
- etc.
Atheists may be able to (weakly) counter each of these evidences, but unlike Christianity, nothing they have even comes close to broadly and coherently explaining it all.
- personal experience
- consciousness
- near-death and out-of-body experiences
- etc.
Atheists may be able to (weakly) counter each of these evidences, but unlike Christianity, nothing they have even comes close to broadly and coherently explaining it all.
Two hours and a few """science""" trolls later, I now have at least a little appreciation for twitter atheists. At least they *try* to look like they're offering arguments and can respond without defecating all over the place.
