No one is required to rub my belly. If you don’t want the good luck that’s your decision.
Are you getting something off your chest, smears?
Usually.
Story of my life right here ladies and gentlemen.
And here I was thinking she wanted to talk about Buddhism.
I’ve had enough goings-on with Buddhism today. The question you quoted still stands unanswered.
You know, ad hom doesn’t just mean nasty insult. It means asking about my feelings instead of Buddhism. Not trying to be rude or mean or a dick or anything at all, but you see the issue right?
I mean they don’t call it a fallacy for nothing.
In Buddhism, how are things(everything) brought into existence? How was the illusion formed? You gonna start a thread or am I?
I can tell you, that no matter what the answer to the question, its going to have to be one that deals with the problem of first cause. Buddhists may use different jargon in their arguments about how existence began, but the underlying problem is a philosophical one that transcends any attempt to answer that question. See my post in gibs philosophy for children thread about types of questions that can only be answered with a guess, and avoid answers that attempts to obfuscate philosophical problems with jargon.
The Dalai Lama would probably say something to the effect of, “how does answering this question solve or address the practical issues of humanity?”
People would have truth that they could believe in and their value judgments would become aligned with the truth and all criminal activites would cease and everybody would hold hands 
singing, “He’s got the whole world in his hands…”
It can’t be true that the problem of first cause is resolved. Philosophical problems aren’t like social or political ones. They’re inherent in the lens by which we must view all things viewable. There’s no answer to those problems that doesn’t involve contradiction, and not just in language, but in any method by which an attempt to solve them is made. In philosophy a problem is only a real philosophical problem when it is structurally unsolvable. To claim to have solved them is to do religion. Not putting religion down, but why learn chemistry when you could learn physics? Why learn literature when you could learn history? Each discipline can be subsumed and assimilated by another to a certain point. In the sciences, you do physics, in the arts, you become an artist rather than a historian or a critic. Among all the disciplines, philosophy is the one that subsumes and is therefore over the others. So who cares what the sociologists say if you know the inherent problems in statistical analysis? Who cares what the critics and historians say if your art is appreciated? And what chemist would dare make a claim that violates the tenets of physics? Anyone who makes a claim to have solved a philosophical problem is bullshitting you.
We’ve already tried giving the world the “truths” of religion. You see how that’s gone so far.
Current religions cover trues, once unified…The Absolute…Truth.
Or, they give conflicting accounts of reality with an equal disregard for the fallacies that must necessarily be employed in order to side step the truly unanswerable questions. Truth is, there are things you can’t know. And deciding that you do know closes the door on the advancement of knowledge and the refinement our our ability to understand the things we can. But it comforts people. But so does macaroni and cheese. That doesn’t mean its good for you.
Credit card has been hacked.
$2,000 of clothes I didn’t buy.
WTF!
Dont worry. Just call the company, get to fraud department, make the claim and they’ll refund it.
Is truth a decision? What I highlighted in red, those two thoughts contradict one another in my reasoning. Either truth exists or it does not unless truth is a decision which grants one the choice to know or not know.
Should have said, “deciding that you think you know”.
You cant decide you know the unknowable and transform your choice to knowledge. But you can decide to think you do. But your, or anyone else’s decision doesn’t resolve the problem of first cause. Think about why some problems in math class don’t have a single solution, but a solution set. Schrodingers cat. Uncertainty principle. These are things that illuminate the nature of true philosophical problems.