Eternal Life - Pros & Cons. If not, why not?

[sparkchaser]

Old school. Uploading consciousness in a rapture stylee is where it's currently at.

Transhumanism is where it's at: upload your consciousness to a computer/robot/cyborg.

 

[Sparhawk]

Transhumanism is where it's at: upload your consciousness to a computer/robot/cyborg.

Exactly what Sheldon Cooper wants to do lol

 

[Meadow337]

I have never maintained that humans have paranormal abilities, only that perhaps after many, many generations of natural selection the day may come when they will. The thrust [that part] of my argument is that science will not examine the possibility that the vestiges of such abilities may be present in the population. Why is it so impossible for scientists to accept that some people may have rudimentary sensory ability to know what is behind a wall and out of their sight but at the same time can accept the fact that we are able to know what is at the other side of a room without direct physical contact? The fact that I can stand on a mountain top and KNOW that ten miles away there is a river because I can see it is just as unbelievable, perhaps even more so, than knowing through another sensory channel what is behind a wall that I cannot see through which is only ten feet away. There is no proof that someone can know what is on the other side of a wall that they cannot see through but to maintain that this will NEVER be possible is both an irresponsible and chauvinistic position to take especially for scientists who I always thought were seekers of truth.

I agree but the problem science faces is that through their belief structures they have decided (to use some one else's phrasing) not only what can go in the black box, but how we may examine what is in it. I feel quite strongly that that prejudice precludes a great many possibilities, some of which may be false and some may be true and a whole bunch of possibilities that may exist which we can not even dream of at this present moment in our knowledge and understanding.

It is, quite frankly the same thinking with many of the responses to this thread - how do we know fatal ennui will set in? What happens if the pressure of impending death (which in my opinion makes a great many people sit on their duff in last 30 some years of their life doing, learning, experiencing nothing new) is removed - what possibilities are opened to us if we never feel there is no point in starting something new because my life is over or I'm too old or I'm retired and deserve to do nothing? We simply don't know, and it might be very exciting to find out.

I rather have the view of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day - at first he feels a certain ennui but then he decides to use the time constructively and he starts doing all the things he always wanted to do but never had the time for. That is how I see longevity / eternal life - a huge gift of time to do anything and everything!

 

[Meadow337]

Exactly what Sheldon Cooper wants to do lol

From what I remember of that episode Sheldon also looked at ways to extend his life until the moment he calculated the technology would be there for him to do that!

 

[Conscious Bob]

... That probably wasn't what you were thinking of...

Correct.

 

[Conscious Bob]

I have never maintained that humans have paranormal abilities, only that perhaps after many, many generations of natural selection the day may come when they will. The thrust [that part] of my argument is that science will not examine the possibility that the vestiges of such abilities may be present in the population. Why is it so impossible for scientists to accept that some people may have rudimentary sensory ability to know what is behind a wall and out of their sight but at the same time can accept the fact that we are able to know what is at the other side of a room without direct physical contact? The fact that I can stand on a mountain top and KNOW that ten miles away there is a river because I can see it is just as unbelievable, perhaps even more so, than knowing through another sensory channel what is behind a wall that I cannot see through which is only ten feet away. There is no proof that someone can know what is on the other side of a wall that they cannot see through but to maintain that this will NEVER be possible is both an irresponsible and chauvinistic position to take especially for scientists who I always thought were seekers of truth.

Scientists are seekers of truth that's the major problem for advocates of telepathy. There is no conclusive test that proves the phenomenon exists let alone works.

With aliens all bets are off, perhaps there are beings that have evolved natural radio transmitter/receiver organs just as we have developed organs that detect light and sound waves.

In the absense of some kindly alien civilisation bestowing the gift of telepathy, that being an unknown ability harnessing an undetectable force or energy to operate an unknown thought transference mechanism, I think I'll just use my phone instead, far simpler and a lot more accurate.

 

[Conscious Bob]

I agree but the problem science faces is that through their belief structures they have decided (to use some one else's phrasing) not only what can go in the black box, but how we may examine what is in it. I feel quite strongly that that prejudice precludes a great many possibilities, some of which may be false and some may be true and a whole bunch of possibilities that may exist which we can not even dream of at this present moment in our knowledge and understanding.

That is not a problem for science, the scientific method is the search for truth (I've decided to use someone else's phrasing too) without prejudice or deference.

In a previous post you mentioned Einstein, Newton and Gallileo, all of them without exception major scientific figures that used scientific method.

There is simply no other way to gain any meaningful knowledge about the greater universe around us.

 

[Meadow337]

That is not a problem for science, the scientific method is the search for truth (I've decided to use someone else's phrasing too) without prejudice or deference.

In a previous post you mentioned Einstein, Newton and Gallileo, all of them without exception major scientific figures that used scientific method.

There is simply no other way to gain any meaningful knowledge about the greater universe around us.

SIGH! Perhaps that is the problem in a nutshell - what if there were other ways that were being ignored, unexplored, undiscovered because of this insane belief that the scientific method as it currently stands is the be and end all of all discovery?

 

[Conscious Bob]

SIGH! Perhaps that is the problem in a nutshell - what if there were other ways that were being ignored, unexplored, undiscovered because of this insane belief that the scientific method as it currently stands is the be and end all of all discovery?

Give me an alternative then.

 

[Dmitri Dmitriev]

Give me an alternative then.

Well the scientific method is a form of inductive reasoning... The obvious alternative would be deductive reasoning (which we do actually use in mathematical proofs, and by extension is used in the mathematical sciences, or other heavy math-based sciences to come up with new theories... such as physics!... I didn't help at all.)

 

[Dmitri Dmitriev]

SIGH! Perhaps that is the problem in a nutshell - what if there were other ways that were being ignored, unexplored, undiscovered because of this insane belief that the scientific method as it currently stands is the be and end all of all discovery?

I feel like I just answered your question, Meadow. Science is a form of inductive reasoning... it never claims it's theories are an absolute truth (the be all and end all)... it claims it's theories are probable (we might be wrong -- but probably not). There's a fine line.

Edit: Nevermind! I clearly don't know how to read!

 

[Meadow337]

I feel like I just answered your question, Meadow. Science is a form of inductive reasoning... it never claims it's theories are an absolute truth (the be all and end all)... it claims it's theories are probable (we might be wrong -- but probably not). There's a fine line.

Edit: Nevermind! I clearly don't know how to read!

LOL ok so why won't science accept the possibility that there might be forces in the universe that can only be perceived indirectly? Why isn't a philosophical or religious theory on how things work given any weight compared with the weight (value) given any scientific theory.

A form of a creation myth is present in every culture, with remarkably similar core concepts. Science darn well knows it has zero understanding of how life got started, no way to replicate that first spark, and random chance just doesn't cut it., but if you dare propose the possibility there was some other force (lets assume "God" is a label for a perceived phenomenon just as much as atom, quark, or kilogram is) that all people across the globe have perceived but which can not be directly measured only deduced through its interactions with the physical world, you and your theory are completely dismissed. Any kind of deduction coming from a non-scientific approach is utterly discarded. I would add that sciences acts remarkably like religion when we start talking about subatomic particles. They can not be directly observed, and are only mathematically deduced from observed effects of their presence in a medium.

From the question and answer below I'd like to ask why is science's belief in teeny tiny things no-one has seen, or can see with present technology, but can only be deduced from their interaction with other things more valid than people observing "god's" interaction with the universe and deducing the existence of some other force from that?

No-one has seen subatomic particles we just believe that they exist because something within the atom causes an effect. That isn't science by its own definition - its faith.

So why is 'scientific' faith better than any other kind of faith? Why can't the other kind (when you strip away all the mumbo jumbo and take it down to its essence of something interacts with the universe to create observable phenomena) be just as valid?

What is being missed by this irrational division of theories as scientific or non-scientific and the exclusion of so-called "non-scientific" theories?

Aren't scientists guilty of defending their faith by denouncing all others as false? And while I have not yet seen any one actually burned at the stake for suggesting other theories (faiths) might have some validity there is certainly a metaphorical burning with the response you get.

The smallest particle that has been directly observed is an atom, an object that was first deduced by - wait for it not a mathematician, not a scientist, but by a philosopher more than 2000 years ago. So tell me why "non-scientific" methods have become inherently wrong?

Einstein did not do the math on his theory of relativity - he deduced the outline of theory why asking 'what if'. There was no experiment, no maths, no observation, just thought.

********************************************​

I would like to know if subatomic particles (hadrons & leptons) have already been seen with a naked eye?

A:
Good question! Subatomic particles, the hadrons and leptons you ask about, are so small they are difficult to detect individually, and elaborate apparatuses are designed for detecting the presence of and measuring the properties of individual particles. Here is a web page describing a fairly typical, large detector for subatomic particles. These detectors are designed to measure the effects of particles when they pass. They may leave a trail of ionized gas, for instance, or a flash of light when they collide with leaded glass. People have seen with their eyes these flashes of light and sparks one can make with the ion trails. An older technique is to expose a liquid just about ready to boil to high-energy particles, and then to take a picture as the bubbles left in the path of the particle start to expand. Here is a web site describing one particularly large bubble chamber, along with a photograph of bubble trails left by subatomic particles.

Electrons are the most common lepton, and protons and neutrons are the most common hadrons (see our description of hadrons. Everything we look at is made up of these things, and so we are looking at them all the time, it's just a question of whether we've seen only one of them at a time. To "see" something with a naked eye you need to shine light on it and observe the photons with the eye (and then one can argue that all you're "seeing" is the photons, a secondary consequence of the electron being there.) Electrons don't weigh very much, so when you shine light on one it will bounce away unless it is held down somehow.

So the answer is no, not to my knowledge, has anyone shined light on just one of these particles and then unambiguously observed the light with their eyes and determined that it came from only one electron or proton. The smallest I remember seeing a picture of is that of a single sodium atom sitting in an atomic trap, fluorescing laser light.

 

[Conscious Bob]

LOL ok so why won't science accept the possibility that there might be forces in the universe that can only be perceived indirectly? Why isn't a philosophical or religious theory on how things work given any weight compared with the weight (value) given any scientific theory.

A form of a creation myth is present in every culture, with remarkably similar core concepts. Science darn well knows it has zero understanding of how life got started, no way to replicate that first spark, and random chance just doesn't cut it., but if you dare propose the possibility there was some other force (lets assume "God" is a label for a perceived phenomenon just as much as atom, quark, or kilogram is) that all people across the globe have perceived but which can not be directly measured only deduced through its interactions with the physical world, you and your theory are completely dismissed. Any kind of deduction coming from a non-scientific approach is utterly discarded. I would add that sciences acts remarkably like religion when we start talking about subatomic particles. They can not be directly observed, and are only mathematically deduced from observed effects of their presence in a medium.

From the question and answer below I'd like to ask why is science's belief in teeny tiny things no-one has seen, or can see with present technology, but can only be deduced from their interaction with other things more valid than people observing "god's" interaction with the universe and deducing the existence of some other force from that?

No-one has seen subatomic particles we just believe that they exist because something within the atom causes an effect. That isn't science by its own definition - its faith.

So why is 'scientific' faith better than any other kind of faith? Why can't the other kind (when you strip away all the mumbo jumbo and take it down to its essence of something interacts with the universe to create observable phenomena) be just as valid?

What is being missed by this irrational division of theories as scientific or non-scientific and the exclusion of so-called "non-scientific" theories?

Aren't scientists guilty of defending their faith by denouncing all others as false? And while I have not yet seen any one actually burned at the stake for suggesting other theories (faiths) might have some validity there is certainly a metaphorical burning with the response you get.

The smallest particle that has been directly observed is an atom, an object that was first deduced by - wait for it not a mathematician, not a scientist, but by a philosopher more than 2000 years ago. So tell me why "non-scientific" methods have become inherently wrong?

Einstein did not do the math on his theory of relativity - he deduced the outline of theory why asking 'what if'. There was no experiment, no maths, no observation, just thought.

********************************************​

I would like to know if subatomic particles (hadrons & leptons) have already been seen with a naked eye?

A:
Good question! Subatomic particles, the hadrons and leptons you ask about, are so small they are difficult to detect individually, and elaborate apparatuses are designed for detecting the presence of and measuring the properties of individual particles. Here is a web page describing a fairly typical, large detector for subatomic particles. These detectors are designed to measure the effects of particles when they pass. They may leave a trail of ionized gas, for instance, or a flash of light when they collide with leaded glass. People have seen with their eyes these flashes of light and sparks one can make with the ion trails. An older technique is to expose a liquid just about ready to boil to high-energy particles, and then to take a picture as the bubbles left in the path of the particle start to expand. Here is a web site describing one particularly large bubble chamber, along with a photograph of bubble trails left by subatomic particles.

Electrons are the most common lepton, and protons and neutrons are the most common hadrons (see our description of hadrons. Everything we look at is made up of these things, and so we are looking at them

It depends what you mean by religious theory, back in the day the Bible wasn't a theory it was the word of God and therefore fact and there was serious consequences for anyone that said anything different. I've already mentioned Copernicus, the book by Copernicus 'On The Revolution of The Celestial Spheres' had to wait for Copernicus to die before it was published as there was a serious risk of execution. After he died he was excommunicated.

Proponents of religious theory these days have to come up with alternative theories, hence creationism and intelligent design but the problem they have is still the same one faced by the churchmen that excommunicated Copernicus, how can religious theory adapt to ever changing science when the Bible itself can't change?

There's lots of stuff we know about that we can't see with the naked eye, all those galaxies in deep space for instance, that's why humanity has developed all kinds of instruments to observe beyond our natural senses.

Lets not also forget the likes of David Blaine and Derren Brown that make it their business to demonstrate how easily the naked eye is fooled.

I feel like I just answered your question, Meadow. Science is a form of inductive reasoning... it never claims it's theories are an absolute truth (the be all and end all)... it claims it's theories are probable (we might be wrong -- but probably not). There's a fine line.

Edit: Nevermind! I clearly don't know how to read!

Science uses inductive reasoning in hypothesis building but it uses deductive reasoning too.

 

[Dmitri Dmitriev]

Science uses inductive reasoning in hypothesis building but it uses deductive reasoning too.

That's what I said!
... Sorry, I'm being a baby.

LOL ok so why won't science accept the possibility that there might be forces in the universe that can only be perceived indirectly? Why isn't a philosophical or religious theory on how things work given any weight compared with the weight (value) given any scientific theory.

A form of a creation myth is present in every culture, with remarkably similar core concepts. Science darn well knows it has zero understanding of how life got started, no way to replicate that first spark, and random chance just doesn't cut it., but if you dare propose the possibility there was some other force (lets assume "God" is a label for a perceived phenomenon just as much as atom, quark, or kilogram is) that all people across the globe have perceived but which can not be directly measured only deduced through its interactions with the physical world, you and your theory are completely dismissed. Any kind of deduction coming from a non-scientific approach is utterly discarded. I would add that sciences acts remarkably like religion when we start talking about subatomic particles. They can not be directly observed, and are only mathematically deduced from observed effects of their presence in a medium.

From the question and answer below I'd like to ask why is science's belief in teeny tiny things no-one has seen, or can see with present technology, but can only be deduced from their interaction with other things more valid than people observing "god's" interaction with the universe and deducing the existence of some other force from that?

No-one has seen subatomic particles we just believe that they exist because something within the atom causes an effect. That isn't science by its own definition - its faith.

So why is 'scientific' faith better than any other kind of faith? Why can't the other kind (when you strip away all the mumbo jumbo and take it down to its essence of something interacts with the universe to create observable phenomena) be just as valid?

What is being missed by this irrational division of theories as scientific or non-scientific and the exclusion of so-called "non-scientific" theories?

Aren't scientists guilty of defending their faith by denouncing all others as false? And while I have not yet seen any one actually burned at the stake for suggesting other theories (faiths) might have some validity there is certainly a metaphorical burning with the response you get.

The smallest particle that has been directly observed is an atom, an object that was first deduced by - wait for it not a mathematician, not a scientist, but by a philosopher more than 2000 years ago. So tell me why "non-scientific" methods have become inherently wrong?

Einstein did not do the math on his theory of relativity - he deduced the outline of theory why asking 'what if'. There was no experiment, no maths, no observation, just thought.

********************************************​

I would like to know if subatomic particles (hadrons & leptons) have already been seen with a naked eye?

A:
Good question! Subatomic particles, the hadrons and leptons you ask about, are so small they are difficult to detect individually, and elaborate apparatuses are designed for detecting the presence of and measuring the properties of individual particles. Here is a web page describing a fairly typical, large detector for subatomic particles. These detectors are designed to measure the effects of particles when they pass. They may leave a trail of ionized gas, for instance, or a flash of light when they collide with leaded glass. People have seen with their eyes these flashes of light and sparks one can make with the ion trails. An older technique is to expose a liquid just about ready to boil to high-energy particles, and then to take a picture as the bubbles left in the path of the particle start to expand. Here is a web site describing one particularly large bubble chamber, along with a photograph of bubble trails left by subatomic particles.

Electrons are the most common lepton, and protons and neutrons are the most common hadrons (see our description of hadrons. Everything we look at is made up of these things, and so we are looking at them all the time, it's just a question of whether we've seen only one of them at a time. To "see" something with a naked eye you need to shine light on it and observe the photons with the eye (and then one can argue that all you're "seeing" is the photons, a secondary consequence of the electron being there.) Electrons don't weigh very much, so when you shine light on one it will bounce away unless it is held down somehow.

So the answer is no, not to my knowledge, has anyone shined light on just one of these particles and then unambiguously observed the light with their eyes and determined that it came from only one electron or proton. The smallest I remember seeing a picture of is that of a single sodium atom sitting in an atomic trap, fluorescing laser light.

Science does accept forces that can only be perceived indirectly (strong and weak nuclear forces, for example).
Philosophical theory? Science is philosophical by nature, it just requires scientific knowledge to create valid theories that can be tested, and experimentation to prove (or disprove) the theory.

As for religious theory... The problem with religious theory is that they are created to try and validate the things said in the Bible (or other religious texts).
As mentioned before, a geocentric universe agreed with the Bible (about perfection in the heavens, geometric beauty, an all powerful force controlling the motion of the universe, and Earth with it's mortal flaw and sin at the centre), even though geocentricity couldn't predict planetary motion. The heliocentric universe was so disgusting by comparison that no one (or very few) considered it; it contradicted the Bible, therefore it couldn't be true!

This is unlike scientific theory where theories are created (and changed) based on what's observed. And yes, some scientists are guilty of "defending science" and denouncing other beliefs, but not all. While the institutions of science do uphold the largest (and most valid) scientific theories, there is rarely complete consensus about an idea among scientists themselves.

Basically, the flaw in religious theory is that it makes the assumption that the things said in the Bible are true... Any philosophy major can tell you, if your initial assumption is flawed, then your entire reasoning is flawed. Even if the reasoning is valid, if the initial assumption doesn't hold, then the argument holds no weight. (Both the reasoning and the assumption have to be valid for the argument to be valid.)...

When you strip religion of it's mumbo-jumbo, what you're left with is usually the facts fundamentalists spout... And a lot of those things have been proven false.
What can't yet be proven or disproven is the existence of God... and that's why the Theory of God can't grow to be anything more than an idea (although religious institutions say otherwise).
And, ultimately, the idea of God isn't within the domain of science (since it can't be proven, disproven, (mathematically or otherwise) or even observable (directly or indirectly)). It's not the job of science to denounce God... it's the job of Atheists... and a lot of atheists [are scientists who] use the theories created by science to denounce religion and religious theory.

 

[Sneezy]

I heart you all sooooo much.

 

[Meadow337]

That's what I said!
... Sorry, I'm being a baby.



Science does accept forces that can only be perceived indirectly (strong and weak nuclear forces, for example).
Philosophical theory? Science is philosophical by nature, it just requires scientific knowledge to create valid theories that can be tested, and experimentation to prove (or disprove) the theory.

As for religious theory... The problem with religious theory is that they are created to try and validate the things said in the Bible (or other religious texts).
As mentioned before, a geocentric universe agreed with the Bible (about perfection in the heavens, geometric beauty, an all powerful force controlling the motion of the universe, and Earth with it's mortal flaw and sin at the centre), even though geocentricity couldn't predict planetary motion. The heliocentric universe was so disgusting by comparison that no one (or very few) considered it; it contradicted the Bible, therefore it couldn't be true!

This is unlike scientific theory where theories are created (and changed) based on what's observed. And yes, some scientists are guilty of "defending science" and denouncing other beliefs, but not all. While the institutions of science do uphold the largest (and most valid) scientific theories, there is rarely complete consensus about an idea among scientists themselves.

Basically, the flaw in religious theory is that it makes the assumption that the things said in the Bible are true... Any philosophy major can tell you, if your initial assumption is flawed, then your entire reasoning is flawed. Even if the reasoning is valid, if the initial assumption doesn't hold, then the argument holds no weight. (Both the reasoning and the assumption have to be valid for the argument to be valid.)...

When you strip religion of it's mumbo-jumbo, what you're left with is usually the facts fundamentalists spout... And a lot of those things have been proven false.
What can't yet be proven or disproven is the existence of God... and that's why the Theory of God can't grow to be anything more than an idea (although religious institutions say otherwise).
And, ultimately, the idea of God isn't within the domain of science (since it can't be proven, disproven, (mathematically or otherwise) or even observable (directly or indirectly)). It's not the job of science to denounce God... it's the job of Atheists... and a lot of atheists [are scientists who] use the theories created by science to denounce religion and religious theory.

Actually this was a profound misunderstanding of what I said, but it is a text book example of precisely the kind of attitude / position I was referring to. I could not have illustrated what I meant by the attitude of science better. It comes complete with the metaphorical burning at the stake I mentioned as well.

So let me point out that I did not mention the Bible, nor any particular religion. I did reference a universal myth with astonishing similarity from all cultures and when a whole bunch of unrelated people come up with the same explanation for something there has to be something to it that needs to be taken note of.

My point is that science has made this arbitary division in what it will accept, investigate and deem valid. Anything outside this division is false. All I'm saying is that there may be much outside that box that is real and valid and science is not only missing out on it, but by doing so is creating a world view and an explanation of the world that is missing crucial aspects. It may well be this exclusion that is behind the failure of science to come up with a Universal Theory of Everything.

You can't come up with a Theory of Everything when you have already excluded somethings. If you ain't looking at the whole picture ....

 

[Conscious Bob]

Actually this was a profound misunderstanding of what I said, but it is a text book example of precisely the kind of attitude / position I was referring to. I could not have illustrated what I meant by the attitude of science better. It comes complete with the metaphorical burning at the stake I mentioned as well.

A misunderstanding of what you said? I believed you were asking a question and in reply you received two very similar answers.

So let me point out that I did not mention the Bible, nor any particular religion. I did reference a universal myth with astonishing similarity from all cultures and when a whole bunch of unrelated people come up with the same explanation for something there has to be something to it that needs to be taken note of.

You didn't mention the Bible but you have mentioned Galileo, Newton and Einstein, two Christians and one Jew citing them as defences for your own argument so it did seem appropriate to mention the Bible at least to me.

Einstein considered himself to be spiritual but he couldn't reconcile his belief with organised religion

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”

My point is that science has made this arbitary division in what it will accept, investigate and deem valid. Anything outside this division is false. All I'm saying is that there may be much outside that box that is real and valid and science is not only missing out on it, but by doing so is creating a world view and an explanation of the world that is missing crucial aspects. It may well be this exclusion that is behind the failure of science to come up with a Universal Theory of Everything.

There's nothing arbitrary about proper scientific method it's observation, theory and experiment. You see or find something, you think about what it might be, come to some sort of conclusion, apply tests to see if you are right and be prepared to accept the possibility of being wrong. What's so wild and crazy about that and why should anyone accept as gospel... being told different?

You can't come up with a Theory of Everything when you have already excluded somethings. If you ain't looking at the whole picture ....

That depends on whether or not the somethings have been observed or can at least be hypothesised.

 

[Meadow337]

I think that I very deliberately and with considerable aforethought stayed away from making any kind of specific religious statement from any particular perspective. Creation myths are universal and are found in every culture - think of it as a cultural phenomenon not a religious one.

Religion has the freedom to make boxes in which 'truth' fits into a particular size and shape and 'not truth' is excluded - that is their prerogative to uphold their truth. Science, however, which is supposed to be a neutral investigation without bias does not have the same freedom, and that is how it acts. It has created a box which it says 'this is science' and 'this is not'. Science acts like a religion upholding its faith with the vehemence with which it excommunicates members who fail to uphold the code and vilifies those who believe in things that fall outside the box. I do not believe it has the right to do that. That science above all else MUST have an open mind and not exclude anything until it is proven conclusively not to be so.

When a belief is so universally similar as creation myths are, from all over the globe, from cultures that had no contact with each other, one must come to the conclusion that there was some reason why this was so. Logically one can not then exclude the possibility that their observation / thought process about how things got started might have some validity.

Given that science has zero answer to the question it behooves it to consider the possibility there are factors that are being dismissed, that exist outside the box science created for itself, that might contain the answer.

Extrapolating this reasoning further the reason science is unable to come up with a Universal Theory of Everything - the holy grail of physics - might just be because the answer lies somewhere outside the box again.

Lets consider a bathtub full of water .... and if all you do is look at the water for an explanation - you have utterly excluded the possibility of the taps. You can look at the water ad infinitum but until you consider the possibility there is something outside the bath responsible for the water you are never in a million years going to see it. I think science is guilty of doing that.

Alternatively consider a little fish scientist on the bottom of the ocean. Fish religion has spoken about a world beyond the limit of the top of the ocean but fish science has said nonsense 'air' is just a myth, lets just focus on what we can see and feel and measure. All the fish who are caught and released speak about having had a mystical experience are dismissed as lunatics with stories of 'alien abductions' while those fish who claim to have gone up into the air by themselves are regarded as saints by the religious. All the while fish scientists try to find explanations for things like where oxygen in the water comes from and while ocean plants and gases released from plate tectonics provide a partial answer the reason for the rest of the oxygen is never found. The religious fish keep saying 'its the air' which the science fish vehemently boohoo and ignore.

 

[Meadow337]

Einstein considered himself to be spiritual but he couldn't reconcile his belief with organised religion

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”

Don't make the mistake of confusing lack of belief in a personal God, with a lack of belief in something outside of that which can weighed, measured or smoked (sorry movie quote again)

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is."
​

From Einstein's Credo (1932) Einstein's Credo

which might explain why Einstein was able to see things other, better educated scientists of the time were not able to see.

 

[Conscious Bob]

I think that I very deliberately and with considerable aforethought stayed away from making any kind of specific religious statement from any particular perspective. Creation myths are universal and are found in every culture - think of it as a cultural phenomenon not a religious one.

Yeah so?,theory based on myth is a waste of time particularly when it's disproved by contradictory evidence.

Religion has the freedom to make boxes in which 'truth' fits into a particular size and shape and 'not truth' is excluded - that is their prerogative to uphold their truth. Science, however, which is supposed to be a neutral investigation without bias does not have the same freedom, and that is how it acts. It has created a box which it says 'this is science' and 'this is not'. Science acts like a religion upholding its faith with the vehemence with which it excommunicates members who fail to uphold the code and vilifies those who believe in things that fall outside the box. I do not believe it has the right to do that. That science above all else MUST have an open mind and not exclude anything until it is proven conclusively not to be so.

You're right, it is not scientific to exclude anything until it is proven conclusively not to be so but it just so happens certain individuals within certain religions do not accept conclusive proof when it isn't aligned with their doctrine.

When a belief is so universally similar as creation myths are, from all over the globe, from cultures that had no contact with each other, one must come to the conclusion that there was some reason why this was so. Logically one can not then exclude the possibility that their observation / thought process about how things got started might have some validity.

Well we're all human beings with similar brains and as a consequence similar thoughts and emotions.

Given that science has zero answer to the question it behooves it to consider the possibility there are factors that are being dismissed, that exist outside the box science created for itself, that might contain the answer.

Nothing is dismissed by science that's why science can't prove whether or not God exists but scientists will keep looking because it's not a belief, it's a method.

Extrapolating this reasoning further the reason science is unable to come up with a Universal Theory of Everything - the holy grail of physics - might just be because the answer lies somewhere outside the box again.

I don't doubt it but to say that the answer could be discovered in religious or philosophical theory is pushing it a bit. There are scientists that are religious but by all accounts religion is left at the laboratory door.

Lets consider a bathtub full of water .... and if all you do is look at the water for an explanation - you have utterly excluded the possibility of the taps. You can look at the water ad infinitum but until you consider the possibility there is something outside the bath responsible for the water you are never in a million years going to see it. I think science is guilty of doing that.

Alternatively consider a little fish scientist on the bottom of the ocean. Fish religion has spoken about a world beyond the limit of the top of the ocean but fish science has said nonsense 'air' is just a myth, lets just focus on what we can see and feel and measure. All the fish who are caught and released speak about having had a mystical experience are dismissed as lunatics with stories of 'alien abductions' while those fish who claim to have gone up into the air by themselves are regarded as saints by the religious. All the while fish scientists try to find explanations for things like where oxygen in the water comes from and while ocean plants and gases released from plate tectonics provide a partial answer the reason for the rest of the oxygen is never found. The religious fish keep saying 'its the air' which the science fish vehemently boohoo and ignore.

Alien abduction you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now! Here's what logic dictates if an alien civilisation has travelled here to observe us then they must have technology that enables them to travel faster than the speed of light and can travel through time. If they are among us they are undetectable. They would not need to pick up idiots from the same small bit of the midwest or prance about in front of isolated travellers in the woods.