The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge

Perhaps we finally are!An I.D. hub would operate as follows, but would need certain admissions from the global science community to be effective.Imagine a building dedicated to dispersing money to scientific pursuits, with a name, and a mission statement, and scientific validation as a legitimate scientific source.It would contain a director of science, a director of funds, and a team of scientists whose duties would be to relay discoveries in their fields. The fields would be astrophysics, Brain sciences, space technology/engineering, and A.I engineers. (Basic idea, a greater expert can find exactly what fields would aid in space exploration, brain and consciousness mapping, and A.I/Robotics)Now here is the most important part: the branch under which this building operates would have to be legitimately accepted by scientists and relayed to the public as the wing of science Dedicated to the Search for God and the understanding of Life through real world data. It has to properly say: "We are after answering the question: What is God, does God exist, And how can man communicate more directly." and that its path to do so is through understanding consciousness, advancing greater consciousness via modeling current conscious systems, and by exploring technology and waves of the electromagnetic spectrum from greater space to find greater being, therefore 'God".If world science panels back the endeavor, they could then reach out to al religious communities publicly and say: We are open to the possibility that God is real, and we are asking you religious who truly believe that God is, to fund the search for God as it has never been done before. as seeking God is the number one pursuit of those in religion, and the belief he exists is so strong in believers, that science will say: We believe in the potential, so let's find him, and prove to all mankind that God is: because God if he is: is a real thing.If you remember, I once stated years ago: that if science was to gain enough knowledge, that it would proclaim that God IS. Many others feel that way, and would fund true pursuit. But the non-believers who use religion to finance ignorance and indoctrination will fight that. But that is where science will have the opportunity to say: why are you concerned? If God is, with your help, we will prove it to the world and then also accuse naysayers of religious reason not to fund the science is because they do not have true belief that God is, and rob people of their money to keep the truth hidden.

In Biology, the brain and its consciousness is the most direct way to explore the potential of God. Until we further our knowledge of how the electromagnetic spectrum reads and writes to produce 'consciousness' then we do not know what to look for in other waves of the electromagnetic spectrum to find that greater consciousness.Now I'm losing a little patience with you for ignoring this statement: The specifics of how to obtain that kind of information within our capabilities is beyond my pay grade, I only know that the field is in constant evolution, and extra financing in the areas attempting to dissect consciousness will quicken our understanding. There are many different experiments requiring many different tools, and if funded, the science would be legitimately opening the door towards finding God by first understanding the physics behind our species.

Three items in response, tesla.The research you are talking about is already going on involving millions of scientists of all disciplines all around the world. We are trying to find the keys to consciousness, studying brain and mind, artificial intelligence, psychology, physiology, astrophysics, astrobiology and on and on. Every discipline you mentioned and hundreds more you did not mention we are studying in earnest today.The only difference between this and what you are asking for is that we are not doing this in the name of looking for some kind of god. We are doing this out of curiosity, to learn, because we can, we want to and to further the knowledge and development of our species.We are scientists. The scientific method is rather sticky about the details of a research proposal. You have to state in detail your specific hypothesis, in detail the results you might reasonable expect to find, in the most excruciating detail the exact technologies, methods, math and logic you are going to use, and, finally, what impact on the field your results may hold. It furthers nothing to add and we may find god. It is superfluous. There is nothing in any god hypothesis that merits inclusion. Quite the opposite. We are required to ignore all un-evidenced speculations, be they fairies or inter-dimensional spaghetti. Since there is no viable logic or reasoning, let alone any real data, that suggests some god hypothesis might be a consideration we are forced to ignore this speculation.Do hsa-mir-181a and hsa-mir-181b function as tumor suppressors in human glioma cells?
Versus
Looking for God in whether hsa-mir-181a and hsa-mir-181b function as tumor suppressors in human glioma cells.Finally, do you think that with all those scientists studying all those areas if there is hard objective evidence of some god (the kind of evidence you think may be out there) we will somehow miss it if our research proposal does not state we a specifically looking for it? If such evidence is out there don’t you think we will find it even if we are not looking for it?I lied, one more item.Religion’s history with science is one of suppression, ignorance and violence. This has not changed as evidenced by how religion is trying to suppress the science on abortion, stem cells, child immunization, global warming and other subjects they see as against their gods or their holy books or their creeds. So fuck religion. We don’t want their money.I do not think your ideas are viable.Edited by AZPaul3, : clarify

We have come full circle. I would assume that you would have scientists submit grant applications to the ID hub. So what experiments would be in the grants as it applies to biology? What biological experiments would they need money for? So what experiments would you do in the field of biology to determine if God influenced the history of life? Can you spell those out for us? Would you do genome comparisons? What exactly? You seem to be jumping to the conclusion. What if science found that God is something we made up?

How does that give us knowledge as to how God changed life through history? Then why are you posting in this thread?

Curiosity needs direction. We humans can only interpret data within the limitations of the mind to interpret data based on our viewpoints on what that explains. So, although it is conducting the same research, it is excelling that research, and then comparing the data of that research to say: other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum to see if similar algorithms of conscious type activity are present and potentially interpretable. that’s the biology side.The other side is less biological, but no less important: building greater consciousness by mimicking the brain with silicon technology and electrical function and energy through which we can supply much more energy than the human body can for a brain.And finally admitting we need better space travel capabilities, and have a lot of room to grow in the area of space travel at this time.To your final admission that Fuck the religious, you are blaming people for the indoctrination they have had since a child, and their societies agree with. Whatever experience you have had with religion, lack of education on the matter is the issue, and not the indoctrinated, who have been taught foolishly, and can learn. But if you refuse to acknowledge your ignorance, why would they take you seriously?I lied: the final note is anyone who will pretend to know whether or not 'God is, or 'is not' is just as stupid and ignorant as the indoctrinated who claim without doubt he is. You do not know how existence is possible, or the limits of the universe, and thinking like that is just as dangerous as being a religious fanatic for the progress of knowledge. Admit where your knowledge stops, that’s the first step to obtaining more wisdom, are you a complete fool? Am I?I wish to have a hub to direct those sciences with the intended search to explore the possibilities that consciousness does not stop with human biology, and could very well encompass systems that apparently are non-life, but just like the carbon that makes up your body, it is a part of a life that is conscious. It’s potential. And not so ludicrous given the scientific data that shows all life to be composed of what is considered non-life.Edited by tesla, : stop/stops

Why is that insufficient?Let's use other examples, such as lightning. At one time in history, lightning was claimed by some to be the product of supernatural activity. Through time, we were able to use our minds to discover that lightning was actually the product of natural mechanisms, not supernatural mechanisms. Why can't use these same minds to look at the evidence in the field of biology and determine if the history of life was a product of natural or supernatural mechanisms in the same way?IOW, you have failed to ever demonstrate that we are currently unable to determine if the history of life was influenced by a designer. None of this has anything to do with running experiments in the field of biology to determine if the history of life was influenced by the supernatural.

True. And, for the most part curiosity is self-directed. Most research fellows present their grant proposals to those organizations that fund research in the areas of the fellow's interest. Having more sources would be good, but there is nothing in the types of research you are asking that is not already being done, minus the woo factors like"... other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum to see if similar algorithms of conscious type activity are present and potentially interpretable."Have you looked at The Templeton Foundation? Isn't that the kind of "hub" you are describing? Science knows and admits quite readily that we are ignorant of a whole big bunch of stuff. We know for a fact that we don't know far more than we do know. I personally feel that there is more that we will never know then what we will ever know. However, what we do know we know very very well.The problem is on the religious side. I have yet to meet a religion that does not believe they have some kind of spiritual lock on all Truth^TM. They do not realize their own ignorance and, further more, will deny inconvenient reality even when all the facts, evidence and proofs are laid out before them. I don't care if their ignorance stems from acculturation, mental defect or magic idiot hats. Ignorance is ignorance.There is nothing in most of religion that warrants being taken seriously. Correct, we can not say with absolute certainty. Nor can we say with absolute certainty that Santa Claus or some inter-dimensional bowl of some spaghetti deity exist or not.What we can say is this:From the history of religion in our species, from the psychology and neurology and emotion of our species and from the physics we know, the conceptions of any and all gods are most likely the conjures of the minds of men. The likelihood that some kind of supernatural magical entity existing is exceedingly small meaning our confidence level in the non-existence of such spiritual super beings is quite high.But this isn't the thread for this discussion. This forum is full of threads covering this topic. Frankly, I am not beyond answering both in the affirmative. Foolish or not, your ideas are not viable.

So use your mind again, and realize that just because God appears above understanding does not mean God really IS beyon understanding.Supernatural by definition means apparently not natural. But apparently not natural has been discovered natural. And so also would it be with 'God' if greater consciousness exists.Tell me this, do you wonder if neurons believe themselves independent? if we interpret the collective thoughts of the many neurons, perhaps a greater embodiment could see the collective of human thoughts. It's potential . And ignoring that truth is stupidity. Think about it.

Now see, that is the same attitude the worst scientists of all time have believed, and have harshly held back advancements of the greatest scientists of all time: including Einstein, because of shallow thinking and believing that you know the limits of what science can know.Yesterday’s beliefs become tomorrow’s myths, and if you don't believe me, look at history. Open your mind; there is a shit-ton we don't know. But recognizing that we may be able to learn " Just a little more." You are committing a fallacy! You want to compare a legitimate proposal of what is not known to a generalized description of what we KNOW we made up. That’s not fair, that is sophistry. Well just because that is your conclusion does not mean others are not more realistic in their thinking. You’re blinded by a hatred of religions.

Misunderstanding. My bad.I never said "stop looking." I believe there is more to this universe than we can ever hope to know, which means our adventure into discovery will never end. That is a good thing.I'm mostly talking about the kinds of stars, systems, planets, life that are out there. I'm talking about finding what comes after quantum gravity, after finding the constituents of quarks, after we resolve the singularity.I am human. Hear me roar. I will know so much than before as I spread my searching mind across all time. As we search and learn if we find some kind of god so be it. Most likely more Spinozan than anything else. But I will not waste my limited resources looking for one. We have so much more to discover. We KNOW all gods envisioned throughout all of man's time on this planet ARE made up. That is the point, tesla. Given the KNOWN history of humans we KNOW this as certain as we can ... just not absolute, which is unattainable. Based on all the evidence we have we KNOW this as certain as we KNOW there is other life out there in this universe.At this point in our history, with the knowledge we presently possess, to believe otherwise is illogical dangerous ethnocentric emotional bullshit bordering on dementia. Realistic? REALISTIC?! You call the insistent emotional need for a fairy tale to be true "realistic"? You think running this world by the myths of ancient tribal priests with thousands upon thousands of conflicting deities is "realistic"? Get a grip, tesla. The scales have been lifted from my eyes. Any dispassionate reading of history shows the evil that is religious thought. It is time to face the reality of our knowledge and our place in the cosmos and be done with such self-deluding crap.No, tesla, I am not bitter. I am concerned our species will never cast off it superstitious thumb sucking and finally grow up.

You have not shown that God appears anywhere. What I can show is that we have used our minds and the scientific evidence to test claims of God acting in nature, and we have been able to run tests to see if this is true. So why not do the same with the history of biology? In practice, it means unevidenced and faith based beliefs. No, supernatural beliefs have been shown to be false. Time and again science has shown that what was once claimed to be supernatural is actually natural and was never supernatural. Supernatural is nothing more than a God-of-the-Gaps argument, and argument from ignorance. This is why you are incapable of describing experiments that will test your God-of-the-Gaps. Your God only exists because we have not run those tests. Potential is not science.

All I'm wanting is science to have another possibility to be entertained while examining data. Not "goddidit" but rather: 'what wavelengths are carrying transmissions that match consciousness in behavior.' (if the question isn’t at least asked, any relevant data could be missed)That means understanding consciousness, and it also means scientists not being taught that creation is only possible by supernatural means, since all that is a part of existence is natural to it.Don't waste your time. but at the very least throw off that monkey keeping you from being productive that forces you to believe you know something that cannot be known yet. If you begin to believe you actually know something about whether or not there is a god or Gods, you have committed a lie to yourself. That’s dangerous for all who need wisdom in their work.And yes concerning our history of God or Gods, I believe you are most probably accurate. But that doesn't mean that the mystery of existence does not actually include one or more in its miracle of being.I can only lament that though I have failed to convince you of anything, that there is a lot of money the religious will continue to waste on indoctrination because in their minds that is the only way to look for God, who they depend on to explain how existence is possible, instead of legitimate sciences being funded that could lead to a finding such being through the pursuits of the natural sciences, and it's discoveries along the way being beneficial even if nothing is discovered.I was led to science as a child dreaming of discovery, and when I go to my grave I will still tell those that will hear: my love of science, is in the beauty of discoveries.

And what if there is some kind of natural universal energy field out there, of which all living things partake?And what if evidence were to be found of such an energy field? Conclusive evidence? Evidence that we could communicate with such a universal field?What do you think the reaction of the world's 40,000+ different religions, sects, denominations, etc. would be? You think they would say, "Aha! Now we have found the TRUTH at last?"Not a chance. There are too many egos involved, and too many folks making a good living. And too much belief in unevidenced dogma. There would be lots of good old fashioned "burnings at the stake" over such a discovery. And probably a few thousand more schisms. (That's what you get when you rely on belief instead of evidence.)Reminds me of Heinlein's comment, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

The possibility is scientifically worthless unless it produces hypotheses that can be tested. Should crime scene investigators entertain the possibility that Leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes in such a way that they are indistinguishable from the real thing? Should meteorologists entertain the possibility that clouds are really formed by Marklar, the king of clouds? Why should scientists entertain these possibilities?Every great discovery in science is related to experiments or testing ideas against new observations. Every single one. Theories that can not spawn experiments are scientifically sterile. They are still born. What we have with ID is a set of religious beliefs that people want to be taken seriously, so they try to make it look like science since people take science seriously. In doing so, they completely miss the characteristics of good science since good science is not their real goal. The label of "science" is all they really want. They just want the appearance without all of that hard work.What you are really saying is that you want other people to take your religious beliefs seriously. I get that, but you have to realize that your beliefs are not useful in the realm of science. They are not science.