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

There's no reason to assume anything could survive the heat death of the universe, because that would be a violation of thermodynamics. It's also quite clear what is and isn't conscious. We might down have the brain mapped down to entire source code, but we more or less find where any given aspect of the human mind is on the brain and poke it.

[QUOTE=Lium;49529808]I find that pretty hard to believe. Absolutely none? That's pretty unlikely, it's a very widespread religion.[/QUOTE] Studies don't actually survey literally every single last person in the country. If you read it, they simply said they couldn't find any. Doesn't mean there aren't [i]any[/i], just that if there are they're extremely rare. Critical thinking, man. [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] Tried reading the actual paper on it, but it's in hieroglyphics so I can't. From what I can guess from the numbers and graphs on it, however, I can take a guess that the sample size is just under a thousand people. Not particularly large.

Mabye all of us are wrong and the Ancient Egyptians had the right religion.

[QUOTE=Toro;49534172]Mabye all of us are wrong and the Ancient Egyptians had the right religion.[/QUOTE][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetism[/url] They're interesting people, but unfortunately hanging out with them isn't like the Age of Mythology campaign mostly because I've yet to get one of these folks and somebody who's really, really into their Greek heritage in the same room as me. [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] ps: hi to any fellow "neopagans" out there wiccans go home you dont count [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] jk yes you do

I suppose that if you accept the multiuniverse or many worlds interpretation, there must be at least one universe in which a "god" exists and given that we don't know which it means any one of the universes contains a god, which would imply it's possible that our own universe possesses a god.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49533984]It's also quite clear what is and isn't conscious. We might down have the brain mapped down to entire source code, but we more or less find where any given aspect of the human mind is on the brain and poke it.[/QUOTE] we're still pretty unsure of what is and is not conscious. it runs the gamut from "only certain animals are conscious" to [URL="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-theory-of-consciousness/"]"every system which is sufficiently integrated, from bacteria to humans to your thermostat"[/URL]. if you get into more carl jung or rupert sheldrake ideas then the entire consciousness debate gets incredibly more complex. consciousness is one of the fields where we really don't know what is going on. i think it is interesting that the most intimate experience in life is also the one we understand the least

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49534418]I suppose that if you accept the multiuniverse or many worlds interpretation, there must be at least one universe in which a "god" exists and given that we don't know which it means any one of the universes contains a god, which would imply it's possible that our own universe possesses a god.[/QUOTE] Why must it?

[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] Maybe relevant: [URL="http://multivax.com/last_question.html"]http://multivax.com/last_question.html[/URL] (And a good read anyways)

[QUOTE=helpiminabox;49534456]Why must it?[/QUOTE] If it entails infinite possibility, and that is a possibility, then that is entailed.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49534490]If it entails infinite possibility, and that is a possibility, then that is entailed.[/QUOTE] There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. None of them are 2. Likewise, perhaps even in an infinite amount of universes the laws of physics only gives rise to structures that we know to exist (atoms, molecules, planets, stars, etc.) in our own universe, though rearranged. Meaning it wouldn't be a 100% chance of there being a god in at least one of an infinite amount of universes. There might be for all I know, maybe even in this one, but it's not a guarantee.

[QUOTE=taipan;49534464]Maybe relevant: [URL="http://multivax.com/last_question.html"]http://multivax.com/last_question.html[/URL] (And a good read anyways)[/QUOTE] my favorite asimov story

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49534418]I suppose that if you accept the multiuniverse or many worlds interpretation, there must be at least one universe in which a "god" exists and given that we don't know which it means any one of the universes contains a god, which would imply it's possible that our own universe possesses a god.[/QUOTE] I don't think this is true. The normal description of God includes that he is a necessary being. If that's the case, then if it's possible for him to exist, then he must exist in all universes; and if he doesn't exist in any one universe, then he can't exist in any of them. If you're just talking about a pagan type god, then ignore this.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49533864]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.[/QUOTE] You can't just say "lol concience isn't defined" and then assign it to each and everything you would like to so it fits your believe system. That's not how it works. [editline]15th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=helpiminabox;49534572]There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. None of them are 2. Likewise, perhaps even in an infinite amount of universes the laws of physics only gives rise to structures that we know to exist (atoms, molecules, planets, stars, etc.) in our own universe, though rearranged. Meaning it wouldn't be a 100% chance of there being a god in at least one of an infinite amount of universes. There might be for all I know, maybe even in this one, but it's not a guarantee.[/QUOTE] A god that needs the laws of physics to change or even needs the laws of physics at all is a piss poor god.

[QUOTE=helpiminabox;49534572]There are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1. None of them are 2. Likewise, perhaps even in an infinite amount of universes the laws of physics only gives rise to structures that we know to exist (atoms, molecules, planets, stars, etc.) in our own universe, though rearranged. Meaning it wouldn't be a 100% chance of there being a god in at least one of an infinite amount of universes. There might be for all I know, maybe even in this one, but it's not a guarantee.[/QUOTE] This is something I think people overlook, assuming there's even any reason to believe in infinite universes. Infinite universes doesn't necessarily mean every universe is possible.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49535631]This is something I think people overlook, assuming there's even any reason to believe in infinite universes. Infinite universes doesn't necessarily mean every universe is possible.[/QUOTE] ...that's exactly what an infinite multiverse means though. Everything that is possible, is possible. Not only is it possible, but somewhere out there, it must inevitably exist. And the really mindfucked aspect of this is that with the multiverse, not only could there be universes out there that have the same physical constraints which ours does, but there could also be universes out there that do not have the same ones. If physical laws are not consistent across universes, then there's literally no limits on anything. If it can be imagined, then it's possible. The unimaginable as well is possible. And if things truly are infinite, then that means not only are they possible, but that they must inevitably exist somewhere else out there. We don't know. We just don't. We might someday, but we don't right now. It's all a matter of hard science and mathematics as much as it is philosophy. That's the intriguing thing about this stuff. The main thing we have to do is to keep trying. We must keep trying to understand and to discover and to know. The same is true of consciousness; there's a ridiculous amount we don't understand about it. There's not even a common agreement on what exactly it is-- is it a simple matter of classical mechanics, or is it more complex than that? Is it a quantum phenomenon? Can it be artificially created, and, if so, is it consciousness that we're dealing with in that case or just a simulation of consciousness? Could consciousness itself be nothing more than a simulation (and if so, are we then simulated?)? Does it work on the principles of the integrated information theory, the global workspace theory, or is it a combination of the two? Is there something more to it?

Everything that's possible might be possible might possible, but it's quite likely even if there are a infinite amount of things that are possible, it's a lot smaller infinity than the things there aren't. Think of a universe where Hitler didn't have a moustache. Hitler not having a moustache would be dependent on a causal chain going all the way back to the big bang. Not only do you have to ask if history could have unfold in such away that Hitler has a change of fashion sense without one rock or bit of DNA being out of place before then, but you also have to ask if even a single particle with a slightly different spin, in those tiniest fractions of a second after the big bang, wouldn't result in entirely different galaxies.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49535062]I don't think this is true. The normal description of God includes that he is a necessary being. If that's the case, then if it's possible for him to exist, then he must exist in all universes; and if he doesn't exist in any one universe, then he can't exist in any of them. If you're just talking about a pagan type god, then ignore this.[/QUOTE] More of the weak desist kind here. The Christian god in particular is pretty hard argue for when you have multiple other monotheistic gods too to which the arguments may also apply (meaning in turn it is difficult to differ between the zoroastrian, christian, and Sikh faiths.)

You guys are thinking about the multiverse in the wrong way - if other universes do exist then there is no reason why there can't be an infinite amount of them. And if we do discover other universes it could be claimed that God created every one of them. God isn't some probability, he's something that can be seen as the initial starting point, the guy who flipped the switch and caused the big bang(s). Also, God and multiverses are alike in that we can't prove or disprove the existence of either. We may never even be able to see outside our own universe due to inflation, and how we would even detect another universe is bordering on imagination. Imagine a universe made of something like dark matter, which we first discovered in the 1930's and still don't know what the hell it is. While physical constants can differ these can also determine how long a universe lives for - their stability. It's possible for a universe to be created with constants that are unstable rendering that universe to be short lived, so I'd like to think that not everything is possible. Only time, bigger telescopes and bigger colliders can tell.

Title of thread blurs what is actually meant a bit. The article is implying that 0.0% of the surveyed under 25 believe in [i]creationism[/i], rather than the possible interpretation that they do not believe in God or that God did not create a Big Bang/an event that resulted in the Big Bang and created the Earth that way.

[QUOTE=Govna;49535928]...that's exactly what an infinite multiverse means though. Everything that is possible, is possible. Not only is it possible, but somewhere out there, it must inevitably exist. And the really mindfucked aspect of this is that with the multiverse, not only could there be universes out there that have the same physical constraints which ours does, but there could also be universes out there that do not have the same ones. If physical laws are not consistent across universes, then there's literally no limits on anything. If it can be imagined, then it's possible. The unimaginable as well is possible. And if things truly are infinite, then that means not only are they possible, but that they must inevitably exist somewhere else out there. We don't know. We just don't. We might someday, but we don't right now. It's all a matter of hard science and mathematics as much as it is philosophy. That's the intriguing thing about this stuff. The main thing we have to do is to keep trying. We must keep trying to understand and to discover and to know. The same is true of consciousness; there's a ridiculous amount we don't understand about it. There's not even a common agreement on what exactly it is-- is it a simple matter of classical mechanics, or is it more complex than that? Is it a quantum phenomenon? Can it be artificially created, and, if so, is it consciousness that we're dealing with in that case or just a simulation of consciousness? Could consciousness itself be nothing more than a simulation (and if so, are we then simulated?)? Does it work on the principles of the integrated information theory, the global workspace theory, or is it a combination of the two? Is there something more to it?[/QUOTE] There is as much evidence for multiverses as there is for god, which is to say no evidence at all.

[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] Saying that an idea from our ancestors inherently has value because they were our ancestors is equally fallacious. Their ideas should be judged based on the merit of the ideas themselves, not because they have some wisdom beyond our modern comprehension. A strictly materialist scientific point of view also [I]never[/I] says we have all the answers. If we believed we had all the answers scientists would have no reason to exist. Scientists are constantly asking why, that's how we've learned so much about the universe.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49536959]There is as much evidence for multiverses as there is for god, which is to say no evidence at all.[/QUOTE] It's one of the many logical conclusions of the nature of the universe. The universe doesn't create [B]1[/B] of anything, so it might be reasonable to assume there's more than 1 universe.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49536959]There is as much evidence for multiverses as there is for god, which is to say no evidence at all.[/QUOTE] I thought there was a suspicious dip in the cosmic background radiation that could suggest another universe beyond ours.

[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] The lack of evidence has always been there; the lack of explanations, however, has gotten smaller and smaller. Our ancestors ways were the ways of of people with no other way to explain the world around them than inventing stories. Stories that could instill a society's values based on immutable divine truth instead of logic or empathy were all the better.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49537455]The lack of evidence has always been there; the lack of explanations, however, has gotten smaller and smaller.[/QUOTE] Not really, we still have the same questions that people like Plato thought led to the existence of some first cause god.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49537642]Not really, we still have the same questions that people like Plato thought led to the existence of some first cause god.[/QUOTE] Well somebody probably should have pointed out to Plato that a first cause god is special pleading, and doesn't even actually answer any questions, to boot.

[QUOTE=Antlerp;49529895]God would precede the big bang, therefore if you believed the big bang was created by God then you would answer 'Created by God'. Because it would ultimately mean that God did create the world. Considering this, it's not an issue.[/QUOTE] It gets more complex - what is the world. Is it all of existance? Our universe, just earth. If you believe in God him and the universe being discrete are not essentially in opposition. So yeah, for Christians it really depends on the interpretation of the question and their own personal belief on how creation went.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49538053]Well somebody probably should have pointed out to Plato that a first cause god is special pleading, and doesn't even actually answer any questions, to boot.[/QUOTE] It really isn't. There's a difference between saying that we have a group of things that need causes, but I'm going to arbitrarily pick one out of the pile and say that it doesn't need a cause because it's necessary; and defining an object outside of that group that, by definition, doesn't need a cause. It would only be special pleading if someone were to be arguing for some pagan type god that exists within the universe (all matter, energy, laws, fields, etc.)

[QUOTE=sgman91;49540098]It really isn't. There's a difference between saying that we have a group of things that need causes, but I'm going to arbitrarily pick one out of the pile and say that it doesn't need a cause because it's necessary; and defining an object outside of that group that, by definition, doesn't need a cause. It would only be special pleading if someone were to be arguing for some pagan type god that exists within the universe (all matter, energy, laws, fields, etc.)[/QUOTE] Defining an object as "outside the group" is itself special pleading. Putting something outside the group is (A) arbitrarily creating a special "no rules" area, (B) does not require an intelligent force to "break the rules" any more than inside the group, (C) having caused our universe, by definition, is not outside the group, and (D) still leaves us where we started- with a god that does nothing but add one more step before reaching the same problem.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;49540355]Defining an object as "outside the group" is itself special pleading. Putting something outside the group is (A) arbitrarily creating a special "no rules" area, (B) does not require an intelligent force to "break the rules" any more than inside the group, (C) having caused our universe, by definition, is not outside the group, and (D) still leaves us where we started- with a god that does nothing but add one more step before reaching the same problem.[/QUOTE] (A) Positing structures outside of time isn't completely unheard of. Time is what makes things require creation - casual explanation. Anything outside of time exists at all points in time. It is independent of time. (B)Inside the group, causality raises questions of what came before. Outside of time this question does not arise. (C)Interaction between a timeless entity and a temporal one (let's say the universe) would be abstract to say the least. Such an entity, however, would, from its point of view, be equally acting upon all points in time. They would all be as close to it as any other point. The question of how it interacted with the creation of the universe ends up being the same of how it is that there can be any sort of logical or mathematical constant in existence from which order can arise, be it in the atomic, molecular, cellular, macroscopic, cosmic, galactic, universal, or even multi-universal. All these things must share some order in common which is not ephemeral. (D)Where we started is a question of how can there be motion. The answer proposed is that there is a final unmoved mover which gives rise to these things. This is not a problem if you allow complexity to exist outside of spacial-temporal structure. Such a structure has change encoded into its nature whereas the external timeless structure proposed would not. This is not an arbitrary distinction but rather an actual rift between what can change, and what cannot.