I do not understand. Why can it not have a bearing on whether or not something could be true? I mean it should at least be worth investigating.
Because as much as some people like to think otherwise, reality does not conform itself to suit our wishes. Even if everyone on the planet wished that all of the volcanoes on earth started gushing beer, it would not make it true.
And the idea is not worth investigating because it's idiotic. If I claimed there was a magic elf named Cuddles who lived in my closet and gave golden pixie dust to good little boys would that be worth investigating? Obviously not because the very idea is ridiculous and there is no evidence to even begin to think such a thing was true.
To what punishment are you referring?
The bibles punishments for not being a believer.
But this is only recently. More recently is the discovery of dark matter and dark energy.
Black holes have been known to exist for a long time. And dark matter and dark energy have been theorized since the early thirties. I have no idea what point you're trying to make with this. All of these things were theorized about based on evidence that they existed. No one made claims beforehand about their properties until they had reason to believe they were there in the first place.
Spirit realm aside, I think there are many discoveries yet to be made in matters of the universe. Some theorize there are multiple universes. There is no proof they exist no more than there is proof that a spirit realm exists but yet scientists theorize that they "might" exist.
*sigh* Yes there is proof that they exist. Does it never occur to you to actually read a book, or to just do a google search to make sure that you're actually informed of what you're talking about before you type something down and announce your ignorance. There is proof of multiple universes, not enough to prove conclusiely but it exists. That's why it's called a theory. Because it has facts to back it up. Your "spirit realm" idea has nothing to back it up. Do you actually not see the difference?
Furthermore this still ignores the point. That being that scientists don't make claims beyond the evidence. While they follow evidence which says that multiple universes might exist they don't make claims about what those universes are or what properties they might have because we don't know such a thing. You're trying to not only posit your spirit realm but make all manner of other claims about the nature of it that you have no way of knowing even if it did exist.
No they make theories. One such theory is that the "other side" of a black hole is another "Big Bang." And there are differing theories. I mean sometimes I think some of these theories are the result to too much acid, but yet they exist. I don't understand how some are rightly called "theories" and not hypothesis. But whatever.
Evidence. A theory has facts to back it up. In simple terms a theory is an explanation of how the various facts fit together. They take the facts that they have about a black hole and try to explain how those facts fit together. Then when new facts come along they compare it to the old theory/theories and see if the new facts support the theory, or prove it wrong. If the new facts prove it wrong or don't fit, then clearly the theory was wrong and they have to come up with a new theory that better fits the facts. It's a process of refinement. Ultimately as you get more facts you get closer to the truth.
This is as opposed to the religious way of doing things, which is make things up and claim they're real, ignoring anything that proves you wrong.
Okay here you go. If someone had a hypothesis that a spirit realm existed then how would they go about testing this?
First you would have to define what you're testing for. You need to actually be able to define the "spirit realm" otherwse how would you know it if you found it. That's why you can't prove the existence god (well one of the reasons) because theists can't even define what a god is in the first place.
And my main reason for bringing up a black hole is to demonstrate that "other laws" may exist that are unknown to scientists.
So what? That was never an issue. This is called a Strawman fallacy that you're making. It was never said that there aren't things unknown to scientists. What was said is that you can't honestly make claims about things you can't even define and have no evidence for, because the concept becomes meaningless.
