These two sentences contradict each other. If spirits don’t show up on tests then there isn’t any evidence for scientists to reject. But if evidence does exist (whether it is rejected or not) then spirits could be tested for and their existence scientifically proven.
We’ve detected neutrinos. We could do the same thing with spirits or souls if such things weren’t make-believe.
The closest thing we might find to evidence would be that we discover too many coincedences to be considered coincedental. If the odds of something happening on its own are so great that it would no longer be logical to conclude it happened on its own then science might concede there is a force at work we have not identified.
Well, churches, religious groups and others have had quite a while now to gather such information-How much longer should we hold our breath?
Whats the difference, 1,000, 10,000 years. Churches are not gathering th information, churches have nothing to do with this thread. Spritualists are not gathering the info either. Scientists are gathering it and the rest of us are patiently waiting for them to take it as far as they can to see where they end up. They have quite a ways to go before they can say with any certainty that nothing else exists.
Once again, you’re conflating lots of different things and not thinking very clearly.
Far from saying that “nothing else exists,” there is a very long list of things out there that science has proved exist that were completely unknown before science began investigating: everything from Higgs particles to neutron stars to new species. What science hasn’t found (and not for lack of trying) is anything that remotely resembles the concepts of religious mythology.
And it’s not surprising, since we have a fairly robust understanding of where the ideas found in religious myths come from, and we know (as much as we know anything historical) that it wasn’t from examining evidence, nor from supernatural revelation. We can trace concepts like monotheism and Satan and eternal judgment back to before they entered mainstream Judeo-Christian thought, and although we can’t prove that that’s where the ideas come from, it would be a remarkable coincidence if God just happened to reveal things that were in every singe case nascent in the surrounding culture already. If religion were right about any of those ideas, it would be he purest coincidence, since it would be right for entirely wrong reasons.
Science certainly isn’t done finding new things that exist. Other dimensions and other universes are increasingly looking like a very real possibility (though likely not directly detectable in our lifetimes, if ever). We may someday find alien life, even beings greater than ourselves. But it won’t match stuff that humans made up. And we’re slightly less likely to find Yahweh or Brahman than we are to find Darth Vader or Alf.
How would you determine what is “too many coincidences”? How would you compare the odds of something we have established has happened happening naturally with that same something being caused by something whose existence we cannot establish in the first place? It’s like drawing a royal flush of spades in a poker game, and then claiming, “this was too unlikely to happen naturally, it must have been caused by pixies!” But we have no data on how likely these pixies are, because we don’t know if they exist in the first place. Meanwhile, the likelihood of just naturally drawing a royal flush of spades is miniscule, but we know that it’s possible.
Science is not “The process of looking and looking and looking and looking and looking and looking and looking until I get the answer I like”.