Ban all religious discussions

[Geriatrix]

I don't know why you want to come across as insulting or condescending towards buyeye as I am pretty sure he has more than a clue what I am referring to thanks .

Techne! Are you really banned from PD? We should get you back. Boring there without you.

[Pr⊕phet]

Isn't it bizarre that god claims to be creator of all things yet you can't prove he exists? Biggest con job ever.

hehe, that god didn't create it at all. You are talking about a interpretation not The Interpretation.

[unskinnybob]

From my understanding of basic chemistry , for all those chemical reaction to combine and start the process of building the universe a 'Catalyst' would be needed to get the process going . This catalyst can be God or a superior being.

So what was God's catalyst? He's just existed forever works for you. But the ingredients of the universe existing forever? Não comprende.

[copacetic]

He is asking for a starting point or reference point where all information at that point is accepted and the debate ensues from the assumpyion of those points.

Dood keep up.

Fair enough! As I said though, the reason it comes up is when religious people make specific claims about reality. They are indeed making assumptions, and it's perfectly reasonable to call them out on those assumptions.

[copacetic]

This catalyst can be God or a superior being.

It could be anything. An undirected process for all we (or you) know. Assuming god/a superior being is nothing more than a hopeful assumption.

[buyeye]

I've actually been(reluctantly, long story). It's all cold-reading and bull. Fake a placebos.

You are being too vague , how much did you research ? Did you find anyone to show how to do it? Nevermind I don't want details.

Maybe you can pm anyone who wants to know.

[Geriatrix]

You are being too vague , how much did you research ? Did you find anyone to show how to do it? Nevermind I don't want details.

Maybe you can pm anyone who wants to know.

What do you mean? You said go to any medium or occult type people. I've been to a psychic and an aura healer and a chi-whatever-you-call-em. Scam artist, all of them. Nothing more though.

[buyeye]

So what was God's catalyst? He's just existed forever works for you. But the ingredients of the universe existing forever? Não comprende.

Please read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

I do like the First cause arguement. Which I think would answer your question . I think you will find the sources in the link credible.

[buyeye]

What do you mean? You said go to any medium or occult type people. I've been to a psychic and an aura healer and a chi-whatever-you-call-em. Scam artist, all of them. Nothing more though.

Did you ask to speak to a demon?

[unskinnybob]

Please read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

I do like the First cause arguement. Which I think would answer your question . I think you will find the sources in the link credible.

1500 year old philosophy is hardly an argument for a creator, sorry. I've said it before: philosophy is a smile on a dog.

[buyeye]

1500 year old philosophy is hardly an argument for a creator, sorry. I've said it before: philosophy is a smile on a dog.

Then we just left with going out and finding proof yourself . Keep safe post your findings here.

[unskinnybob]

Then we just left with going out and finding proof yourself . Keep safe post your findings here.

Catch 22 bud. I won't go looking for evidence of a creator because I don't believe in a creator. If science identifies a creator, however unlikely that is, I'll sit up and listen. Until then, not happening. The book you cling to is just too flawed to cut it by my standards.

[Techne]

Please read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

I do like the First cause arguement. Which I think would answer your question . I think you will find the sources in the link credible.

Good luck, some people are immune to logic and philosophy. They think they are outmoded ways of proving things, which of course is ironic as those are the exact think needed to prove important things such as.... realism, truth, goodness, God, the soul etc.

So it is understandable to see some have a fundamentalist anti-philosophy and anti-logic attitude. Not all though, which is why you need to read more about the subject.

[unskinnybob]

Good luck, some people are immune to logic and philosophy. They think they are outmoded ways of proving things, which of course is ironic as those are the exact think needed to prove important things such as.... realism, truth, goodness, God, the soul etc.

So it is understandable to see some have a fundamentalist anti-philosophy and anti-logic attitude. Not all though, which is why you need to read more about the subject.

Please show me the logic. Can't explain therefor goddiddit isn't logic. Anti-philosophy <>= anti-logic. Not sure where you pulled that out but better luck next time.

[buyeye]

Good luck, some people are immune to logic and philosophy. They think they are outmoded ways of proving things, which of course is ironic as those are the exact think needed to prove important things such as.... realism, truth, goodness, God, the soul etc.

So it is understandable to see some have a fundamentalist anti-philosophy and anti-logic attitude. Not all though, which is why you need to read more about the subject.

He asked a question and I did my best to answer it.