Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

How do you convince people god exists?

1…6791112…35

Comments

  • #242
    Hedgelayer
    Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭Hedgelayer


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    My son told everyone in school he had two mammies because it is normal and the truth. It is normal because it was part of his perfectly normal life.


    Some kids have two daddies. Some kids have neither mammy or daddy. Some kids have just a mammy or a daddy. Some kids have a daddy and a mammy of different ethnic backgrounds. Some kids have a granddad or grandmother who parent them. For each one of those children that is their normal.

    Telling children that there are different kinds of families is not foisting anything on anyone. It is recognizing the reality one kind of family may be the majority type but it is not the only type and other kinds are just as valid.



    How dare anyone turn to a child and say 'your family isn't normal' :mad: - a person filled with such arrogance, lack of empathy, and understanding should be kept well away from children in my opinion.

    I'm a GAY man myself and a family consists of a unit of guardians and one or two parents.

    You have one dad and one mom, nothing more.

    Suggesting to kid's they've two daddies or mummies is like telling them there's a Santa or Easter bunny.

    I've come across lesbian and gay couples parenting and most of them do a pretty dam good job at it without undermining the fact that the kid also has a biological father or mother too.

    You have a parent and a partnership in those relationships, nothing more or nothing less.

    Thankfully for my son's sake his dad myself is a masculine gay man into surfing, fishing, bushcraft and hiking camping etc so he was able to benefit from that and have a normal upbringing...

    But I cannot understand this whole two mummies and daddies thing it's not factually correct.

    It's undermining the integrity of a family unit.


  • #243
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Hedgelayer wrote: »
    I'm a GAY man myself and a family consists of a unit of guardians and one or two parents.

    You have one dad and one mom, nothing more.

    Suggesting to kid's they've two daddies or mummies is like telling them there's a Santa or Easter bunny.

    I've come across lesbian and gay couples parenting and most of them do a pretty dam good job at it without undermining the fact that the kid also has a biological father or mother too.

    You have a parent and a partnership in those relationships, nothing more or nothing less.

    Thankfully for my son's sake his dad myself is a masculine gay man into surfing, fishing, bushcraft and hiking camping etc so he was able to benefit from that and have a normal upbringing...

    But I cannot understand this whole two mummies and daddies thing it's not factually correct.

    It's undermining the integrity of a family unit.




    You may be a GAY man who is super butch and masculine and all that (go you!) but you seem to have contradicted yourself there.


    No one has said children do not have a biological mother and a father (even when those two people may never have actually met each other or even know each other's names) however that does not make them parents in the day to day caring for a child sense or any kind of a family unit.


    If a child is being raised by 2 mammies, 2 daddies, 1 mammy, 1 daddy - then that is the family unit of that child.


  • #244
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    If one mammy or daddy, a mammy & daddy, two mammies or daddies.... all constitute 'normal', what about 3 mammies and a daddy or two?


  • #245
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If one mammy or daddy, a mammy & daddy, two mammies or daddies.... all constitute 'normal', what about 3 mammies and a daddy or two?


    Are you familiar with the concept of divorce and people re-marrying?


    Parents are the people who raise children.
    It's called parenting not birthing for that reason.
    And parenting is what I am talking about.

    Family units come in all kinds of permutations.



    To paraphrase Shakespeare "There are more things in heaven and Earth, antiskeptic, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"


  • #246
    khaldrogo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭khaldrogo


    ILoveYourVibes wrote:
    So why do people?


    Insecurities and not being comfortable in themselves I find........


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Hedgelayer
    Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭Hedgelayer


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You may be a GAY man who is super butch and masculine and all that (go you!) but you seem to have contradicted yourself there.


    No one has said children do not have a biological mother and a father (even when those two people may never have actually met each other or even know each other's names) however that does not make them parents in the day to day caring for a child sense or any kind of a family unit.


    If a child is being raised by 2 mammies, 2 daddies, 1 mammy, 1 daddy - then that is the family unit of that child.

    Less of the super butch bullsh1t I heard that one before lol super butch , it's not a particularly nice way to describe a guy.

    Would you like if I suggested you're a bull dyke ?


  • #248
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MOD: As this thread is on the topic of "How do you convince people god exists?" not "How do you convince people LGBTetc parents exist?" (and I am just as guilty of this as anyone) any further discussion on the topic of the composition of family units and sexual orientation of parents that is not clearly and obviously tied into proving/disproving the existence of god will be deemed off topic and deleted.

    Thanking you for your cooperation in staying on-topic.


  • #249
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Hedgelayer wrote: »
    Less of the super butch bullsh1t I heard that one before lol super butch , it's not a particularly nice way to describe a guy.

    Would you like if I suggested you're a bull dyke ?


    You wouldn't be the first or the last to use that description. It depends on if you mean it to be offensive or not - even then water + ducks back.


    I don't considering calling someone who describes themselves as very masculine as "super butch" to be inaccurate but I apologise if I offended you in any way.


  • #250
    Hedgelayer
    Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭Hedgelayer


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    You wouldn't be the first or the last to use that description. It depends on if you mean it to be offensive or not - even then water + ducks back.


    I don't considering calling someone who describes themselves as very masculine as "super butch" to be inaccurate but I apologise if I offended you in any way.

    It's ok it's like water off a fishes back to me,but I like the terminology super butch, I didn't mean to offend you either....

    And you're right bringing in gay and lesbian parenting into this debate ain't what it's all about...


  • #251
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    smacl wrote: »
    Why do you think a god is equivalent to a spaceman? After all, man largely makes gods in his own image for the most part, occasionally cutting and pasting in a bit of another animal or a few extra arms or legs. In my mind, gods are solely a creation of our own imagination.

    Better question is why not?

    And maybe any 'god' can make man somewhat in his own image, rather than vice-versa, not that this is important. Modifying DNA isn't such a difficult science afterall.

    In your mind you consider a 'god' type entity as an human (constant) imaginative charachter.

    Whereas in fact any visitor to Earth from one of the { 40,000,000,000 (x) 1,000,000,000 } I.e. '4E19' habitable '40,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 planets' in the (observable) Universe, (or other dimension), would certainly be conidered 'god-like' by any age of our civilisation including this current modern one.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    'We' don't teach our kids. Some teach their kids some things - according to their belief system. Others, other things.

    Your position rests on the 'majority flavour of the moment' (there have been other majority flavour of the moments).

    This is turn rests on your belief in the onwards and upwards march of humanity.

    As we have seen, that belief (e.g the supposed progress in human rights, whilst we witness Italy taking further steps to ensure those whose rights have been trampled on will drown in the Med) is anything but established.

    That 'beliefs ought not be foisted upon other beliefs' only seems to work one way in your world: where it concerns belief you don't share being foisted on beliefs you do share.

    This is problematic.

    What I find crass is your employing flat earth comparisons with beliefs you don't share when your own dangle from the same set of sky hooks.

    By "we" I'm referring to our society rather than any given individuals. In Irish schools we teach our children that it is not ok to discriminate against people based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

    You're right, human rights are aspirational and not always achieved in reality and do change over time. The "flavour of the moment" as you so quaintly put it is better than at any previous time and I would hope that it continues to improve.

    Where I think your notion of normal falls flat on its face is the failure to recognise and accept society is composed of many diverse groups. In a diverse population you have many normal ranges, not one. This is as true of mathematics as it is of society, so for example given the following numbers {1,2,3,22,21,22,97,98,99} what is normal? We see the exact same with your take on Christianity, in that in your view most Christians aren't 'real' Christians. As such by your logic, you therefore are not a normal Christian. By my logic, you belong to a specific minority group of Christians that is distinct from other groups of Christians who collectively make up Christianity. Should we vilify you because you don't conform the behaviour expressed by the single largest group of Christians?

    You might find my references to flat earthers and creationists as crass on the basis that you consider such notions ridiculous, but then I daresay many other Christians would see your take on Christianity as similarly absurd, and as an atheist any theistic belief absurd.


  • #253
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Dean Broad Mound wrote: »
    Better question is why not?

    Well, some of those larger magic powers popular with the more recent gods, you know like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.
    And maybe any 'god' can make man somewhat in his own image, rather than vice-versa, not that this is important. Modifying DNA isn't such a difficult science afterall.

    In your mind you consider a 'god' type entity as an human (constant) imaginative charachter.

    Whereas in fact any visitor to Earth from one of the { 40,000,000,000 (x) 1,000,000,000 } I.e. '4E19' habitable '40,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 planets' in the (observable) Universe, (or other dimension), would certainly be conidered 'god-like' by any age of our civilisation including this current modern one.

    While there might be any number of habitable planets in the universe, none of them might be reachable from any other one without faster than light travel. So while I agree that there most probably is other intelligent life out there in the universe, the probability of any of it ever being contactable in the limited life time of our species is rather smaller. The probability that it has already happened and this is where we get our notion of gods from is smaller still and to my mind insignificant until such time as supported by some evidence.


  • #254
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    smacl wrote: »
    While there might be any number of habitable planets in the universe
    Agree, rather alot indeed likely, just from the 4e19 probability.
    smacl wrote: »
    none of them might be reachable from any other one without faster than light travel.
    Fine so it comes boils down to a matter of 'transport'.

    Even at or below light speeds suspended animation would come into play, then there's any number of ai-robotics and near light-speed surveillance opportunities. Mix in multi-verses, or future discoveries of tachyons or developments in quantum science (as primitive humans evolve further)

    Also ask, if they visited in the past, or if they do in the near-ish future would they wish to make themselves known. Likely not, outside of singular focal point/area of contact, the 'holyland' may well have been the downtown Manhattan of 2k years ago, and it's still backwards war-torn mess now, as it was then.


  • #255
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Dean Broad Mound wrote: »
    Fine so it comes boils down to a matter of 'transport'.

    Pretty much. Transport as in energy and time. FTL, tachyons, wormholes, and multiverses are all speculative ideas at this point in time. Without these, to move something from point a to point b takes energy and time. Energy to keep your AI or suspended animation rig running as well as some propultion and navigation. To cover huge distances that take huge amounts of time this takes huge amounts of energy. For interstellar travel this isn't solar energy so where does the energy come from?

    I think you're essentially comparing religion with science fiction rather than science here.


  • #256
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    smacl wrote: »
    Pretty much. Transport as in energy and time....
    ...where does the energy come from?
    Pretty much indeed. Assuming that is, the current limitations or understanding of energy and time as we as a simple primitive war like civilisation, plagued by poverty, disease and inequality, would currently understand such matters.

    Bear in mind we've gone from the 1st ever plane flight (of 18mins) just over 100yrs ago, to landing on the moon 50yrs ago, to NASA considering the X3 ion-propulsion as a means of establising a base on Mars circa 2030. All less time than it takes for a fairly young oak tree to grow.

    This week Trump has revealed that the Pentagon briefed him on the surge in UFOs spotted in American skies - This follows recent F15 Navy pilots observering hypersonic craft with no visible engine or infrared exhaust fumes.
    The Navy acknowledged a “number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled ranges and designated air space in recent years.”
    smacl wrote: »
    I think you're essentially comparing religion with science fiction rather than science here.
    I think you're essentially disregarding high factors of basic scientific probability, with our limited current understanding, surrounding the matter of 'transport' factors.


  • #257
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Dean Broad Mound wrote: »
    I think you're essentially disregarding high factors of basic scientific probability, with our limited current understanding, surrounding the matter of 'transport' factors.

    Perhaps you'd care to quantify some of these high factors of basic scientific probability so, because I'm not aware of anyone in the scientific community talking about a high probability of faster than light travel or manned interstellar travel. These are reasonable aspirations that are being actively researched, but that doesn't mean they will ever come to fruition unless they're inside the bounds of being physically possible with the sum of resources at our disposal. Much like religion, we don't say that something is probably true because we would like it to be true.

    And for my money I'd have about as much faith in Trump's UFOs as leprechauns at the bottom of the garden.


  • #258
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    smacl wrote: »
    Perhaps you'd care to quantify some of these high factors of basic scientific probability so,....
    This was in regards to life outside of our planet, which we both have already agreed was 'likely'. Given the sheer amount (4E19) of likely habitable planets.

    Sure 'transport' is a limitation, but that's only as we as a primitive civilisation would currently understand it.
    smacl wrote: »
    And for my money I'd have about as much faith in Trump's UFOs as leprechauns at the bottom of the garden.
    They are actually nothing to do with 'Trump', but instead with the Pentagon - who briefed him as routine, following various direct reports from Navy pilots and an increase of activity at various instalations.

    AFAIK they (or anyone) haven't submitted any Class A evidence reports on 'Leprechauns', so your garden is indeed not likely to be habited by them


  • #259
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Dean Broad Mound wrote: »
    This was in regards to life outside of our planet, which we both have already agreed was 'likely'. Given the sheer amount (4E19) of likely habitable planets.

    I think your figures are a few orders of magnitude off there. Looking at the list of potentially habitable planets in wikipedia, it states
    A potentially habitable planet implies a terrestrial planet within the circumstellar habitable zone and with conditions roughly comparable to those of Earth (i.e. an Earth analog) and thus potentially favourable to Earth-like life.[citation needed] However, the question of what makes a planet habitable is much more complex than having a planet located at the right distance from its host star so that water can be liquid on its surface: various geophysical and geodynamical aspects, the radiation, and the host star's plasma environment can influence the evolution of planets and life, if it originated.[2]

    In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][6] 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.[7]

    A 2015 review concluded that the exoplanets Kepler-62f, Kepler-186f and Kepler-442b were likely the best candidates for being potentially habitable.[8] These are at a distance of 1,200, 490 and 1,120 light-years away, respectively. Of these, Kepler-186f is similar in size to Earth with a 1.2-Earth-radius measure and it is located towards the outer edge of the habitable zone around its red dwarf.

    40 billion is 40,000,000,000 or 4E11 not 4E19, so your figure there would be out be out by a factor of 100 million. That is number of earth sized planets in the habitable zone, which aren't 'likely habitable' as you put it, but simply can't be ruled out as potentially so. The number of 'likely habitable' is a very small fraction of this figure. So far the list of exoplanets in the optimistic habitable zone observed to date has just 32 entries in it.


  • #260
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Dean Broad Mound wrote: »
    The Navy acknowledged a “number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled ranges and designated air space in recent years.

    Any reason you put this in the smallest font size available, and what exactly makes you think unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft are UFOs or spaceships from another planet? We have all sorts of drones of all shapes and sizes flying all over the place at this point in time. There's no reason to assume an unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft is a UFO.


  • #261
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    smacl wrote: »
    40 billion is 40,000,000,000 or 4E11 not 4E19, so your figure there would be out be out by a factor of 100 million. .

    That 40bn refers 'only' to the Milky Way, but it's estimated there are '1bn other' 'galaxies' in the observable universe. {Thus multiple 40bnx1bn}. So you've underestimated the factor by x1,000,000,000, by quoting just 40,000,000,000.
    smacl wrote: »
    Any reason you put this in the smallest font size available, and what exactly makes you think unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft are UFOs or spaceships from another planet? We have all sorts of drones of all shapes and sizes flying all over the place at this point in time. There's no reason to assume an unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft is a UFO.

    That was an aside note, to the direct (in-flight, recorded) sightings by numerous Navy pilots, and thus the Pent' breifing to POTUS on those factors. Bear in mind many of these sighting are of hypersonic, irregular movement, and with no heat or know propulsion signatures.

    Nevermind the other factor of strategic instalations being approached without the ability of the world's superpower to explain, and importantly, prevent them.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Hedgelayer
    Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭Hedgelayer


    smacl wrote: »
    Any reason you put this in the smallest font size available, and what exactly makes you think unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft are UFOs or spaceships from another planet? We have all sorts of drones of all shapes and sizes flying all over the place at this point in time. There's no reason to assume an unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft is a UFO.

    They could be just a phenomenal energy pulse that we're unable to measure at this space and time...

    I seen a documentary about these arrow like things flying about caught on a slowed down camera....

    Strange things done in the midnight sun


  • #263
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 17,973 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    mulbot wrote: »
    You can't disprove someting that hadn't been proven to exist in the first place. Using that logic, you could literally claim anything to be true without any evidence.

    If you could prove that God existed with science, then he / she / it would be very much part of the physical universe and something that could be measured by science.

    I would have thought the whole point of a God is that it is something greater than the universe and which doesn't follow the normal rules of science.


  • #264
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    All sounds about as plausible as watching a couple of episodes of Ancient Aliens from where I'm sitting.


  • #265
    Hedgelayer
    Registered Users Posts: 530 ✭✭✭Hedgelayer


    smacl wrote: »
    All sounds about as plausible as watching a couple of episodes of Ancient Aliens from where I'm sitting.

    I haven't watched that,is it worth a look ?


  • #266
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Hedgelayer wrote: »
    I haven't watched that,is it worth a look ?

    Only skipped past it myself while channel hopping. Could well be entertaining but not even vaguely credible. Listed as a combination of pseudoscience and pseudohistory on Wikipedia.


  • #267
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,850 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Santino Ancient Disk wrote: »
    I could say the opposite. I've yet to see an atheist prove that God doesn't exist.

    Do you actually think that (a) it's possible to prove a negative and (b) atheists all claim it to be a fact that no gods exist?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #268
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Dean Broad Mound wrote: »
    Pretty much indeed. Assuming that is, the current limitations or understanding of energy and time as we as a simple primitive war like civilisation, plagued by poverty, disease and inequality, would currently understand such matters.

    Bear in mind we've gone from the 1st ever plane flight (of 18mins) just over 100yrs ago, to landing on the moon 50yrs ago, to NASA considering the X3 ion-propulsion as a means of establising a base on Mars circa 2030. All less time than it takes for a fairly young oak tree to grow.
    As primitive as we are, everything we have observed in the universe over the last 114 years is compatible with Relativity's restriction on speeds. Every star, galaxy, moon, particle obeys it. The sensible thing currently is to think that's probably because it is the case.

    Also it should be said that Relativity doesn't so much say that you can't go faster than light, it actually says the entire concept of "Faster than light" doesn't make sense. It's like "a four sided triangle", it's a nonsense concept thrown out by human language from our intuition about how the world is structured.


  • #269
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Do you have any evidence Free Will actually does exist though? It is quite the contentious claim these days. It is certainly by no means a given.
    I was just wondering about this. Is there more recent evidence beyond Libet's experiments (and variants) in this regard?

    What I've read mostly centers around experiments with last second decisions for which there is significant debate about what they establish, from the statistics being incorrect to even the mechanism inferences being incorrect.

    I was wondering if there is something more substantial than this.


  • #270
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32,972 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    I don't get it re: the F15 pilots reporting UFOs and then the Pentagon telling the POTUS about them.

    Sure didn't they crash land in the 60s and have been in contact with us ever since?


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    I was just wondering about this. Is there more recent evidence beyond Libet's experiments (and variants) in this regard?

    In which regard though? Experiments proving the negative? Why should we even be expected to prove the negative? Should it not be for people who say free will DOES exist to evidence that claim? Not the other way around?

    So recent evidence that it DOES exist? None that I have heard to be honest no. Other than the strong feeling of agency we all have.

    So what I was asking the user above: Given it is somewhat contentious at the moment, I was wondering should they evidence it's existence before using it as evidence for something else?

    You are in the area of theoretical physics though right? I think one of your peers over here in Germany is known to speak on the issue of Free Will occasionally. One Sabine Hossenfelder. Perhaps you can contact her for more dialog on the issue :) I believe she is quite active in answering queries and emails and comments on her website.


Advertisement