The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge

Either way you cut it, it's still a scientific question. you can argue til the day is dead, and it will not change the fact that the question of the chicken or the egg is still one people want answered, and science is the path to understanding our universe.Was a flying car first introduced into the paths of science? not really, it has been an old dream and science breakthroughs eventually made it possible to create one.What about A.I.? Do you really doubt that we will not eventually figure out a way to create that?So what about origins? Do you really believe science has all the answers? So why are you in such a huff about scientists admitting God is a potential until science can figure it out, if ever? But the probability of knowing sooner or later depends on what you invest in.The only thing naysayers do is otherwise slow down scientific funding and discovery because they disagree with a hypothesis that needs more research. Research on Pluto or planets start with capabilities, and that’s all you have been bickering: we don't have the capabilities. I said, oh hey, since we KNOW how brains share and send information, let’s try using that method of reading and writing by scanning waves of the electromagnetic spectrum to see if we could communicate with an intelligence that is greater, but oh wait, we can’t do that because WE DONT HAVE THAT CAPABILITY. Yet. So go get, get funding for it, and admit your atheistic and negative approach to anything concerning God in science is foolish and more damage to science than good. Many people are waking up to the reality that science and politics is run by intelligent idiots, people incapable of recognizing when they are being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn, and in the process are slowing science. So you know what? I have nothing more to say to you.

My solution is more complete because the places to put the money already exist.Examine my suggestion:
First: The science communities as a whole accept the question to answer: does greater consciousness exist? (God) and the current answer known is: I don't know, but it is potential.Second, the institute that supports research to that end will simply disperse the funds to the growing fields that show promise to that end: be it A.I capabilities, Space travel, or scientific physical data on consciousness, such as chemical and electrical similarities with ideas or emotions.The point is to give the religious or spiritual to have a place to put funds into research that may one day make it possible to communicate with 'God' more effectively. But it's a science hub, supported by all scientists, to do research in their fields to progress the species, and give us the understanding we need to work together to solve global problems.See?

Look Percy it is this simple:1. 'God' is potential. Greater intelligence has never been found or measured, and we cannot communicate with lesser intelligence effectively. Which means: there is a lot we do not know, and in light of that, we should research.2. Research should include interstellar, as well as mind and intelligence generated through 'artificial' intelligence models, which may and could become greater intelligence.The bottom line: To absolutely say God is not, or that God is, is an assumption, a chosen belief. And scientists are being foolish by not allowing funding from those who would and could fund such research as long as the title of the research also includes an admittance that God is a possibility.I know it is falling on deaf ears, but hey, ignorant, arrogant, intelligent fools cannot see wisdom.Edited by tesla, : structure.

Who can know? Way I see it, if you want indoctrinated people to wake up to a truth; they need to have a path they are comfortable with. ‘You said so’ doesn't count. Nor ‘I say so’. We all choose to believe what we will for our own reasons. I think this site has run out of usefulness to me. The initial question for me was Is God, or is God not? That’s the only part of the discussion I care about, is discovering that truth or lie. And I've decided, religion does not have that answer. And neither does science. So anyone who say's they know something true have made a decision to believe something, and are probably full of it. Factually, physics is a load of data that supports opinions and interpretations that are tentative. Some I would rely on as fact, by saying "probably true, since evidence supports it strongly" other areas are so sketchy it's not worth mentioning.When it comes to God it's an even bigger mess. Because: our level of intelligence cannot see very far. But people believe it does. People believe we see most everything. But the blindness in that belief is just as bad as believing you have answers from some past writings we know little truth about and cannot scrutinize further than choosing to believe or not blindly.So I decided to add my two cents at a debate site, and as debates go, you could honestly give the very straight forward truth of the situation, and a naysayer will be blind deaf and dumb because to admit otherwise would admit defeat in argument. Sophistry is all that is here for me, and it is useless to me to hear the same question over and over that I answer over and over with the same result of people ignoring the answers. So I will no longer add my opinions here. I will no longer waste my time here.YOU decide. Because I'm pretty sure I'll be dead before any truth is found, because people cannot cooperate to save this species from self-destruction. People are too blinded by their own arrogance in what little knowledge they know, to use enough wisdom to capitalize on people as they are for cooperation, instead of waiting for only those they agree with to find cooperation. And so cooperation is not near what it could be, maybe not even enough to save 70% or more of this planets human life.But if you are still with me:Know this: people are throwing millions, probably billions into organized religion because they are seeking God. Now, with a little open mindedness to the truth, and accepting where our knowledge does stop, science could have that funding instead. But they will not allow believers of God to have real science being done to gain the necessary knowledge and capabilities we need to really begin exploring the truth of the matter. MAKE NO MISTAKE: we ARE exploring every area that leads to that in science already, the difference is: we are leaving out a very good source of funding. But science does not want to give religious people a place to put their money to 'realize' the truth, they want people to give money because they have overcome their indoctrination by accepting a new indoctrination--it would appear. The doctrine that all is false in the religious books is by far not the truth either.So what action do you think I will take from this moment on, knowing that what I'm saying is beyond most peoples capacity to see, think, foresee, or reason? (This last statement is based only on responses here and does not reflect greater conversations and musing with others outside of this website)I will refrain from being something to entertain you and my own expense. Good luck in your journeys. If you have any real and serious conversations worth having, e-mail me at jbrown111@my.apsu and I would enjoy any real serious discussion of our capabilities and limits of knowledge or theories and possibilities of God or greater intelligence potentials, or greater cooperation in our philosophies, which would allow religious peoples to have a place to fund science in the effort to know and find greater being and ‘God’ in a real way.-Tim Brown

You have to build a rocket ship to the moon before you can land on the moon. We have to understand what the language of consciousness is on all levels before we can ascertain what greater consciousness might look like.

Exactly. But I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'.I'm saying let the religious fund real God seeking and less Indoctrinating, but so far no one here seems to get it. Do YOU get that? Or am I wasting more time on useless candor?

Ignoring the content of a person’s text or speech is not debate. It’s avoiding the debate and then calling it debate.

Yes. The difference is they were not seeking higher consciousness. They were seeking a base particle.You ignored everything I said, or failed to comprehend the importance of what I'm pointing out. I'll ask again:I'm proposing more funding, and to also put such science under the funding topics of "search for God' and Hunt for greater being and intelligence'.I'm saying let the religious fund real God seeking and less Indoctrinating, but so far no one here seems to get it. Do YOU get that? Or am I wasting more time on useless candor?

No.What I'm saying is there is no magical science of I.D.I.D. is the chapter of science that includes the acceptance of the potential of God, and wishes to seek God through legitimate science. The legitimate science I have already proposed, that you wish to disregard because it is not 'magical enough' to fit your definition of what I.D. science is to you.

Finally getting close!!!The answer is both yes and no. No, because the religious will not directly fund S.E.T.I.Yes, because indirectly, through an I.D. hub, they would.

God defined: " higher being/intelligence/consciousness/ (other definitions?)Is I.D. true? NOBODY KNOWS. But it is a potential, as no data has ruled it out as a possibility. Being that I.D. is a proposal of the religious, I would argue it has everything to do with God/gods.But to clarify my statement: the idea of I.D. as a science should (if it is not already by some) be defined as "the chapter of science that includes the acceptance of the potential of God, and wishes to seek God through legitimate science.

A technologically advanced life form that split DNA between their species and a species of earth to create 'man' would be 'God' in the eyes of some. I.D. states intelligently designed, by some designer.Einstein said "if we knew what it was we were doing, we wouldn't call it research would we?" (Paraphrased?)When the God particle was found, it wasn't exactly what was initially thought it would look like. And the same rule applies here. God is defined in many different ways, but every definition I know includes superior knowledge and/or consciousness.If we can't find one, perhaps we can create one, and from that creation learn what we could not ourselves figure out. (Super A.I. brain) maybe it would find a superior consciousness. With the size of the universe, and evidence that different levels of awareness and consciousness exist per species, it is almost humorous to suggest that human beings on this tiny planet are the best the universe has to offer.So all I'm getting from you is ignoring all that data I have just stated in a simple post, that God is potential, and it's time we explore those potentials with legitimate science, and reach out to the religious who already seek God with all their minds and hearts (and money) to give those of us who desire to know, a path to begin seriously looking.

And if the history of life involves higher consciousness, it is relevant. And no data has shown that it isn't possible that life was planted by a higher evolved species, or by decision of a greater being we exist inside of. Potentials are almost limitless. So history of life includes my proposals to discover the truth. Since when is scientific exploration 'giving up'? I'm not giving up. YOU are, by suggesting it's not worth scientific exploration. And since there are still many questions concerning that, I believe whatever way we can discover those answers relevant for research.

Experiments that would have been impossible to run with the knowledge and technology of the 1920’s!

You are not very educated are you? How about an etymology of the word God since you’re so convinced I'm using it wrong. Shall we?