0.0% of Icelanders under the age of 25 believes God created the world - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Wiggles;49529819]Bear in mind that Iceland has a population of ~325,000.[/QUOTE] Its a poll, unless they asked the whole population, that statistic might be wrong, but only by a little bit.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49530019]But only that can be assumed. That God precedes all, in the presence of so much conflicting info or subjective views.. And that we are not any wiser about the true nature of existence as we were in the stone age, or the God's will if you prefer.[/QUOTE] I suppose all logic seems to break apart whenever religion joins the party.

[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;49530215]It's understandable that more and more people don't want to believe in god, since there is no evidence whatsoever for him.[/QUOTE] What about all those pieces of toast with his face on them!? Checkmate

[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;49530215]It's understandable that more and more people don't want to believe in god, since there is no evidence whatsoever for him.[/QUOTE] Through the use of reason and working through philosophy, it is possible to arrive at the very least, a form of weak deism however. As to what deity it is, its nature, how many there are, what it does, etc is up to debate.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49530271]Through the use of reason and working through philosophy, it is possible to arrive at the very least, a form of weak deism however. As to what deity it is, its nature, how many there are, what it does, etc is up to debate.[/QUOTE] any form of deism is still up for debate until you can prove that a deity exists once and for all

[QUOTE=OvB;49529827]I don't even think most devout Christians take the bible creation story as reality. I feel like most would say God just created the universe and the rest was history.[/QUOTE] All the books written by Moses aren't taken as historical fact except in the most orthodox of Jewish groups, partially because Moses probably never existed. They're better considered object lessons than historical documents.

Thats because they all know Odin and friends made the earth from Ymir's corpse.

[QUOTE=Antlerp;49530350]any form of deism is still up for debate until you can prove that a deity exists once and for all[/QUOTE] hence why i said weak deism. in terms of belief and the supporting arguments at the moment, it's about as reasonable to assume a god exists as it is reasonable to assume aliens exist

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49530429]hence why i said weak deism. in terms of belief and the supporting arguments at the moment, it's about as reasonable to assume a god exists as it is reasonable to assume aliens exist[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say so - we have already observed lifeforms here on earth, and thus it's reasonable to assume such lifeforms may exist on a different planet; planets which we have also observed. We have never observed anything like god.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49530429]hence why i said weak deism. in terms of belief and the supporting arguments at the moment, it's about as reasonable to assume a god exists as it is reasonable to assume aliens exist[/QUOTE] I don't know if I would put those things on the same scale of possibility. A god by definition, would require infinite more complexity to have developed. An alien race, while complex and coming from a complex history, would be considerably less so than a god. The universe doesn't seemingly contain anything that would point us in the direction of a god like being's complexity existing or being capable of doing so. We are, ourselves, evidence for life, and evidence that life could be elsewhere. God is an assumption. Aliens are a statistical likelyhood.

Responding to the Big Bang vs God options, they're not necessarily contradictory if you didn't consider or take Genesis literally. As well as interpreting that both options exist simultaneously where the Big Bang is the How and God is the Who/Why. Genesis could be just a simplified account of the Big Bang.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49530464]I wouldn't say so - we have already observed lifeforms here on earth, and thus it's reasonable to assume such lifeforms may exist on a different planet; planets which we have also observed. We have never observed anything like god.[/QUOTE] I suppose that is indeed true.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49530429]hence why i said weak deism. in terms of belief and the supporting arguments at the moment, it's about as reasonable to assume a god exists as it is reasonable to assume aliens exist[/QUOTE] Don't we already know alien life exists on Titan or something? Microbes or something.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49529888]There are people who take the creation story, along with everything else in the bible, literally.[/QUOTE] I was listening to the radio (not by my choosing) and some guy called in afraid that if he misread revelations all the plagues would fall upon him.... There are people out there

[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;49530215]It's understandable that more and more people don't want to believe in god, since there is no evidence whatsoever for him.[/QUOTE] the lack of evidence has always been there, the biggest difference is our culture has become more materialistic [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] personally i find it a bit saddening that society as a whole is moving past more spiritual ideas only because they depend on subjective experiences instead of objective evidence. we're losing something that has been with us since the dawn of man, something which is more than just trying to explain how the world works. [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] it feels heavily driven by ego, as though there is no wisdom in our ancestors' ways because they thought differently than us despite being no less intelligent. we believe we have all the answers yet we only know the "how" of things and chalk the "why" up to chance and randomness. it seems incomplete to me to look at the world through a strictly materialist scientific point of view.

[QUOTE=plunger435;49530572]Don't we already know alien life exists on Titan or something? Microbes or something.[/QUOTE] No, we don't. We haven't checked them out though, so we don't know. The possibility is open, for Titan, Ganymede, Europa, etc. Comets might have life in some basic form or another on them (they definitely have all the building blocks). Meteorites have been recovered with possible fossilized evidence for lifeforms (such as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001]ALH84001[/url], [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakhla_meteorite]the Nahkla Martian meteorite[/url], and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_000593]Y000593[/url]-- among others) , but there's skepticism about all this (of course; but then again, that's how science works, and it's necessary to a certain extent). There might be evidence of life on Mars somewhere, either life that still exists somehow (since we've found water) or life that at one time existed before the planet basically died. When you consider things like the Hubble Ultra Deep Field though that reveals just how ridiculously huge (to the point of being terrifying) and teeming with activity our universe is (simultaneously revealing just how insignificant we and our solar system are)... [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg[/t] ...in conjunction with the fact that it's been more than 40 years since we even so much as went to our own moon and that we've never sent manned expeditions anywhere else, the idea we're alone is absurd. There's too much out there and too much going on with it to ever assume we're all there is. [editline]14 January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49530597]the lack of evidence has always been there, the biggest difference is our culture has become more materialistic [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] personally i find it a bit saddening that society as a whole is moving past more spiritual ideas only because they depend on subjective experiences instead of objective evidence. we're losing something that has been with us since the dawn of man, something which is more than just trying to explain how the world works. [editline]14th January 2016[/editline] it feels heavily driven by ego, as though there is no wisdom in our ancestors' ways because they thought differently than us despite being no less intelligent. we believe we have all the answers yet we only know the "how" of things and chalk the "why" up to chance and randomness. it seems incomplete to me to look at the world through a strictly materialist scientific point of view.[/QUOTE] This. Honestly, spirituality is one of the most important things we human beings have, or that we have ever had for that matter. Spirituality basically boils down to nothing more than asking philosophical questions and attempting to derive meaning and enjoyment from life and what it has to offer us in the way of experiences (for growth and development, etc.). That's it. When you take that in conjunction with scientific materialism, there's a lot of fulfillment to be offered. It's not enough to have just one or the other honestly; we need both.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49529871]I've had jews tell me that too, and they're the ones who are expert on the old testament. Frankly, I think having the old testament along with the new testament only hinder christianity.[/QUOTE] Expert seems to be a meaningless term. Not much qualifications, they all disagree on some pretty fundamental stuff, etc.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49529838]hell, i've had a pastor tell me the bible is a collection of allegorical tales meant to teach life lessons and not something to take literally[/QUOTE] I view it as a folk tale, where God did lots of bad shit that he regrets but humans don't want none of his apologies, so he reincarnates himself as a human to die a horrible death to show the shitbats that he's serious. So then history begins playing the longest game of telephone, and somehow we end up with gays are bad.

[QUOTE=OvB;49529827]I don't even think most devout Christians take the bible creation story as reality. I feel like most would say God just created the universe and the rest was history.[/QUOTE] According to a Gallup poll, [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx]about 46% of Americans are creationists[/url]. And that's just [I]the strict sense[/I], "God created all life on Earth", if you include "God made the universe then evolution happened" that number grows.

[QUOTE=OvB;49529827]I don't even think most devout Christians take the bible creation story as reality. I feel like most would say God just created the universe and the rest was history.[/QUOTE] going to a catholic high school, our head or religion and church organiser both believed fully in the story of evolution however they say god was behind it because no one can explain the natural force It's better than creationism so

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49529815]Isn't the creation account in the bible allegorical anyways, whereas the big bang only refers to the history of the early universe rather than the actual circumstances which caused it? (ie the unmoved mover) Like if you asked them about the unmoved mover you would be likely to get different answer, especially as that's quite different from the two questions[/QUOTE] I was under the impression it was written by iron age philosophers using the knowledge they had at the time, with the stories gradually distorted and taking new forms as they are passed from author to author. I think calling it allegorical is a bit of a stretch to find genuine real life meaning where there simply isn't.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49529838]hell, i've had a pastor tell me the bible is a collection of allegorical tales meant to teach life lessons and not something to take literally[/QUOTE] This is what most religious people I know adhere to

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49530501]I don't know if I would put those things on the same scale of possibility. A god by definition, would require infinite more complexity to have developed. An alien race, while complex and coming from a complex history, would be considerably less so than a god. The universe doesn't seemingly contain anything that would point us in the direction of a god like being's complexity existing or being capable of doing so. We are, ourselves, evidence for life, and evidence that life could be elsewhere. God is an assumption. Aliens are a statistical likelyhood.[/QUOTE] If you combine the plausibility of timeless order / objects (The basis for stable physics lets say), with the fact that I can't even prove that YOU are conscious, that leaves it at least plausible that something vaguely describable as a mind exists and is responsible for much of reality thereby making it neccesarily omnipotent and omniscient. Patterns which emerge from that and are interpreted as sentient are ultimately on as stable a ground as the assertion that consciousness is an emergent epi-phenomena that exists within someone else. Ofcourse from there you can start an parameterize this depending on your own inclinations, but suffice to say the likelihood of there being a god depends largely on what you require from such a being and how you approach defining the concept itself.

[QUOTE=cheezey;49529949]For someone who studies at an university but has been indoctrinated with he bible theories like these don't sound unreasonable, it's like a weird blend of the bible and science.[/QUOTE]That's just going "huh, well there's physical evidence of this shit and so if my God made everything then this is clearly how he did it." How is that weird? lmao

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49533711]If you combine the plausibility of timeless order / objects (The basis for stable physics lets say), with the fact that I can't even prove that YOU are conscious, that leaves it at least plausible that something vaguely describable as a mind exists and is responsible for much of reality thereby making it neccesarily omnipotent and omniscient. Patterns which emerge from that and are interpreted as sentient are ultimately on as stable a ground as the assertion that consciousness is an emergent epi-phenomena that exists within someone else. Ofcourse from there you can start an parameterize this depending on your own inclinations, but suffice to say the likelihood of there being a god depends largely on what you require from such a being and how you approach defining the concept itself.[/QUOTE] Um... [I]what[/I]?

[QUOTE=OvB;49529827]I don't even think most devout Christians take the bible creation story as reality. I feel like most would say God just created the universe and the rest was history.[/QUOTE] You know this isn't true simply based on your geographic location. Conerstone Church isn't that far from you. [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;49533711]If you combine the plausibility of timeless order / objects (The basis for stable physics lets say), with the fact that I can't even prove that YOU are conscious, that leaves it at least plausible that something vaguely describable as a mind exists and is responsible for much of reality thereby making it neccesarily omnipotent and omniscient. Patterns which emerge from that and are interpreted as sentient are ultimately on as stable a ground as the assertion that consciousness is an emergent epi-phenomena that exists within someone else. Ofcourse from there you can start an parameterize this depending on your own inclinations, but suffice to say the likelihood of there being a god depends largely on what you require from such a being and how you approach defining the concept itself.[/QUOTE] Except the last 60 years of physics and astrophysics have shown pretty unilaterally that nothing, including the Universe itself is absolutely permanent.

[QUOTE=27X;49533758]You know this isn't true simply based on your geographic location. Conerstone Church isn't that far from you. [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] Except the last 60 years of physics and astrophysics have shown pretty unilaterally that nothing, including the Universe itself is absolutely permanent.[/QUOTE] If you want to take that interpretation and deny that there is any sort of order to existence - no basic rules, that's fine. I disagree. Also, they have not proved that "The universe is not permanent" if all you are referring to is heat death, because that does not address the eternal (existing outside of time) type of order I speak of. (Perhaps some sort of ultimate logic, or mathematics?) Heat death would not touch those.

If I understand your word salad correctly, you take some rather unfounded assumptions about the universe and consciousness, and use them to make a complete non-sequitur about how there must be a "mind" that is "responsible for reality"

[QUOTE=sgman91;49529826]The possible answers to the question seemed to be: 1) Created by the big bang. 2) Created by God. 3) Created by something else or had no opinion. The obvious problem with the question is that the big bang and God are not contradictory answers.[/QUOTE] I mean, for all we know God could have just wanted to implode some shit.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49533842]If I understand your word salad correctly, you take some rather unfounded assumptions about the universe and consciousness use them to make a complete non-sequitur about how there must be a "mind" that is "responsible for reality"[/QUOTE] I said it is plausible, and it isn't a non-sequitor, but rather an unelaborated logical consequence of one way of looking at the wierd status of consciousness. Furthermore it took me about 15 seconds to put that together in my head when I posted it. The two assumptions, reworded, are as follows; (A) There is some order in the universe that would survive a heat death. (Is not related to temporal matters) (B) It is unclear what is and isn't consciousness. Therefore, loosely speaking, it is unclear whether something which could survive a heat death, and is loosely responsible for order in the world, is conscious in some acceptable sense.