What energy?<quoted text>I thought it went without saying that it was based on the assumption of ownership being right in the case of a specific religion's claim
Which I actually pretty much did say on top of it
"Well with all the religions out there and almost all claiming sole ownership of the creator, everyone but one would have to be wrong anyway."
I really needed to add "if one is right"?
I thought you guys were the smarter group
And you are kidding yourself if you think the goal of some scientists isn't to disprove God. I never claimed all scientists share the same brain or motives
And again, look a little deeper in the context for the point. It was their only personal belief that the supernatural can't exist could hinder someone from truly exploring all possibilities. And without proof the supernatural doesn't exist, which is basically impossible to prove a negative so I'd be talking more as it relates to a specific scenario as a possible explanation, it shouldn't be taken off the table. Particularly when it doesn't even contradict science but some people are so terrified of even opening the door to the possibility in any area
For example, science believes energy can't be destroyed. So why should the idea of 'Ghosts' be ruled out as irrational when it could be the energy that was behind the life that once existed in a body? But the bias brought to the table will cause some scientists to consider every possibility other than "ghost". Why? Why would that be such an irrational belief? Energy has to go somewhere right?
You live bc you eat,,,if ghost spirits existed what would they live on?