Science is limited to what we perceive as reality at any given moment in time. However that reality, as you have said, is constantly changing. In view of this it is increadibly short sighted to assert that science cannot be used on products of imagination, particularly because in many cases science is the product of imagination. My point is that what we class as fiction or imagination now may not be accurate due to our lack of knowledge (IE we cant prove something yet, does that make it untrue?). If we can agree that ignorance of truth does not make something less true, then can we agree that to discount the possibility of a creator or God at this stage in our development is premature?
Science is not the product of imagination, hypotheses are and they may or may not become science at some point. If something classed as imagination at some point is later proven to exist then it is simply assimilated by science. I don't totally dismiss the possibility of a Creator, i generally dismiss it on the grounds of there not being scientific data pointing towards it. Unicorns could one day be proven to exist in some way but i generally dismiss their existance too. I treat all products of imagination equally so I don't see why the idea of a Creator is somehow special. It's not.
This is what I was trying to get at. At the stage I mentioned, the presence of the second room was, at best, imagined only. To the fish, it was ficticious and any attempts to clarify or describe it would be that of pure imagination. As you rightly point out, once the fish reaches the next stage of development the second room then becomes the reality that can be seen, but possibly not reached (perhaps the door is locked and the fish has no way of opening it). So it is with our reality and our own development. Just because we cannot yet prove that God does or does not exist does not change the truth of whether he does or not, in much the same way as the development of the fish did not change the existence of that second room.
Again, why is the idea of a Creator special? Why not several Creators? Why not an infinity of Creators that wear pink trousers, get drunk every Friday night and vomit an Universe in the morning? All these ideas are made up, they have no grounds and I rightfully dismiss them.
That is a very bold statement to make. Do you accept the possibility that there are truths out there that science will not be able to find, perhaps because it cannot see them? I will take faith as an example. If God does exist, and he is the creator of all, is it plausable that he created the universe in such a way that only those with faith in him can find him? We cannot prove otherwise, and as unlikely as it may seem we have to accept the possibility. Or are you saying such a supposition is impossible? As impossible, say, as the chances of single cell life in the primordial soup evolving into sentient intelligent beings? Lets be honest, if we had to bet on on it back then, who would bet on us succeeding?
I haven't mentioned if my tea had milk or not. Only I know the truth and science will never find it so I do accept the possibility that some truths are beyond it's reach - imaginary truths.
In fact, I think we need to be at a certain level of development before we can even start to research and answer the question. However, does that change reality? Our perception of reality can be very different from actual reality. This is the point I am trying to make.
What you're saying is, because there are unknowns, the idea of a Creator shouldn't be dimissed. Fine, then explain why the idea of 2 Creators shouldn't be dismissed. Then the idea 3, 4, .... 1.000.000. Then explain why I shouldn't dismiss the infinite drunken Gods idea. See where I'm going? If your idea has no basis in reality, you or someone made it up and the correct, default position towards it should be:
dismissed.
If you feel that discussing elements beyond our understanding or our perceived reality is unhelpful, or wasting time I then struggle to understand how it is you can be a staunch believer in science. Afterall, is that not what science is about? We not only use it it prove/debunk things, but to create and invent things. We use it to turn imagination into reality and we have been pretty good at it thus far!
Why do you think cavemen didn't build missles? They didn't do so because when they started discussing elements beyond their understanding, they imagined the explanations and simply accepted them. They should have observed, tried to repeat the observations, formed a hypothesis trying to explain them and finally they should've tested this hypothesis. In other words, they should've used the scientific method. Science does not pop out of the blue, imagination plays a role but only when it's coupled with
observation. Do you know of any realiable observations that may have a divine source?
But why? Because it is our nature? Where did that nature come from? What (or who) influenced or designed it? Evolution? OK, lets run with that. If evolution is so evident, why are we the only ones to have made that leap from basic animal state to a more advanced being? Luck? What are the chances of that? Trillions to one? We can happily accept the notion of evolution from a single cell organism to human being against absolutely ridiculous odds, but the notion of God existing and making the planet is simply a fairy tale, beyond reality and fit for naught more than childrens stories? Really?
Absolutely everything that happens in the Universe had a low chance of happening if you theoretically go back in time. 1 in 300 million are the odds of your father's sperm cell reaching your mother's egg. Yet here you are replying. In fact, each of the 7billion people on the planet had the same chance to exist. What are the odds of that? Evolution is one of the most solid theories in science, much more solid than, say, Einstein's relativity. Your belief in it or mine for that matter are irrelevant , it offers one of those truths you mentioned: how our species came to be.
Can you accept, then, that there may be truths that exist outside of our current reality that are still to be discovered? In scientific terms it could be cold fusion. In spiritual terms it could be the discovery of a soul, or the existence of God. At this stage in time, all of those things are fiction, mere imagination. Science is a tool to discover them (or not as the case may be), but prior to proving/debunking their existence, they either exist or do not. Giving special status to those things which align more with the application of science and dismissing those things which do not is short sighted, in my opinion, but perhaps it is a process we need to go through to reach a higher level of intelligence and understanding.
The idea of cold fusion is based on numerous other scientific discoveries and thus shouldn't be dismissed. The existance of a soul is based on absolutely nothing so i will give it the same treatment as every other idea based on absolutely nothing: dismissal.
I am sure if a creator exists he/she/it will be found eventually. My point is it may not be science that finds that answer. Perhaps science is not meant to find that answer, by design. I dont really know, but what I do believe is that keeping an open mind is the only way forward. I lean more towards the science side of discovery, but I think to dismiss a notion because it seems unlikely, or because we we cannot yet prove it is increadibly short sighted and damages our development.
I hope there is a God and heaven, I really do. But until such time as I am satisfied that is true or false, I will continue to have an open mind and accept the possibility of either outcome.
How come dismissing the infinity of imaginary possibilities (except one) is not short sighted ? How come it doesn't damage our development?
I completely agree though, it amazes me that it goes unquestioned for the most part considering it's almost a lynch pin of our society... Then again, that's probably why it goes unquestioned.
