God & Blackholes: Mysterious Ways vs Physics Theories

[jobyts]

"God works on mysterious ways, which we don't understand" - a usual answer I hear from theists when asked about some contradictions.

As per the current Physics, "Inside a black hole, every existing physics theory breaks."

What's the difference between these two statements? Does god concept assumes we are in a black hole?

Also, how could science come up with a bold statement "Inside a black hole, all existing physics theories break." Why we don't come up with statement as "all the existing theories are incomplete because they all fail to predict what happens inside a black hole."?

 

[mgb_phys]

"Inside a black hole, all existing physics theories break." Why we don't come up with statement as "all the existing theories are incomplete because they all fail to predict what happens inside a black hole."?

It's the same thing

 

[jobyts]

It's the same thing

Are scientists actively working on inside black hole theories/hypothesis? Even if we do not come up with a unified theory for both inside and outside of a BH, there has to be some physics inside a BH.

 

[mgb_phys]

There is a difference between the "God moves in mysterious ways" answer and the black hole one.
The first is just an excuse for not thinking about a question, like why does God kill 4year olds in church and yet let's whoever wrote 'home alone' live.
The second is an approach by literal minded experimental physicsts that if you can never measure the conditions in an experiment you can't talk about it in physics - that's true of inside a black hole.

Physical laws have circumstances where they aren't an appropriate model. Newton's law of gravity is usefull for point sources at large distances but doesn't work when r=0 as at the middle of a Black hole. There are more complicated theories of quantum gravity for what would happen to gravity on a very small scale.

 

[ideasrule]

Also, how could science come up with a bold statement "Inside a black hole, all existing physics theories break." Why we don't come up with statement as "all the existing theories are incomplete because they all fail to predict what happens inside a black hole."?

But...that's exactly what scientists are saying, that "all the existing theories are incomplete." It's part of the reason why quantum gravity is being so heavily worked on.

 

[Jack21222]

"God works on mysterious ways, which we don't understand" - a usual answer I hear from theists when asked about some contradictions.

As per the current Physics, "Inside a black hole, every existing physics theory breaks."

What's the difference between these two statements? Does god concept assumes we are in a black hole?

Also, how could science come up with a bold statement "Inside a black hole, all existing physics theories break." Why we don't come up with statement as "all the existing theories are incomplete because they all fail to predict what happens inside a black hole."?

Plus, we've actually observed black holes. We know they exist.

 

[arunma]

"God works on mysterious ways, which we don't understand" - a usual answer I hear from theists when asked about some contradictions.

As per the current Physics, "Inside a black hole, every existing physics theory breaks."

What's the difference between these two statements? Does god concept assumes we are in a black hole?

Also, how could science come up with a bold statement "Inside a black hole, all existing physics theories break." Why we don't come up with statement as "all the existing theories are incomplete because they all fail to predict what happens inside a black hole."?

I think there's a serious difference between the two statements. One is a theological statement which doesn't really admit to any sort of testing. You just have to take it on faith, or reject it (and really, either position would be arbitrary). The second statement is merely an admission that there's more physics to be done, because we don't have enough knowledge to talk about the inside of a black hole's event horizon. "I don't know," is very different from an arbitrary statement of truth which isn't based on any empirical evidence.