<p>O ya, I wanted to say this before. Leonhard Euler once had a great debate with an athiest philosopher over the existance of God. Word got around Prussia that Euler had created a proof for the existance of God, so there was a great meeting and Euler said to the philosopher, "(e^(pi)(i))+1=0, hence God exists. Reply!"</p>
<p>o ya, the philosopher was Diderot i think.</p>
<p>lol nice one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People that are living now weren't living in AD && BC
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, actually, people who are living now are living in AD. Not BC, though. Just to clarify. </p>
<p>Some things in the Bible were probably changed as time went by. However, I sincerely doubt that these changes were ever very significant. Although a few random verses may have been altered, I don't see this as meaningful. I'm certain that no one took the Bible and invented the whole New Testament, for example.</p>
<p>^^ I think wordings may have changed to fit the person's needs -- such as a priest in a congregation where nobody but him can read.</p>
<p>Yeah, you're probably right. Even a priests are human. However, if a priest like the one in your example altered something, he probably didn't permanently alter it. What I mean to say is that a small change like this probably didn't have much influence in way the actual Bible was written.</p>
<p>"No, actually, people who are living now are living in AD. Not BC, though. Just to clarify."</p>
<p>rocker, Although you "tried" to clarify, I'm still bamboozled by this statement. how are people that are living now living in AD? which stands for anno domini, just in case you didn't know</p>
<p>Believe it or not, Anno Domini is the era that we're living in. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Definition: 1. Abbreviation for Anno Domini - Latin for The Year Of Our Lord - used in the Gregorian Calendar to refer to the current era. A date such as 1945 A.D. literally means 'the 1945th year of our lord', the lord in question being Jesus Christ, providing a religious context and clearly distinguishing the time from an earlier era, where B.C is used instead. The use of A.D. was popularised by Bede.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Abbreviation for Anno Domini - Latin for The Year Of Our Lord"</p>
<p>sorry rocker, but thats enough to contradict what you're saying^</p>
<p>I see nothing in the defintion you provided that proves that its regarded as present time</p>
<p>I do not so much "believe" that God exists, as if the question were a matter of faith. Rather, I KNOW that God exists, by way of reason. As the medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas says in the SUMMA THEOLOGICA, "The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles."</p>
<p>The existence of God is a demonstratable metaphysical reality that need not have anything to do with religion. Religion is what comes, or should come, after one has been faced with this reality. </p>
<p>This is what makes religion reasonable and rational, and theology the greatest science. Denying what has already been demonstrated by pure reason (see Aquinas' "Five Ways"), or choosing to do nothing with it (not testing the waters of faith to see what might be there), is truly unreasonable and irrational.</p>
<p>This is really pointless, but if you can say 1945 AD, what makes you think that you can't say 2007 AD?</p>
<p>because, like your definition said AD is refered only to the year of the lord.
If thats the case you might as well say 2007 BC.....but are we before christ though? ....no</p>
<p>no form of clarification is pointless</p>
<p>So Authentic, rockermcr is right on this.</p>
<p>Fides et Ratio, Aquinas' arguments for the existence of god through reason have been refuted many times in just as convincing a manner as he has presented them, so they really bring us nowhere. Besides everything Aquinas says is theoretical and I'd like some empirical proof. What's more worrisome is that you consider theology a science. Even theologians don't consider themselves scientists but philosophers.</p>
<p>"Fides et Ratio, Aquinas' arguments for the existence of god through reason have been refuted many times in just as convincing a manner as he has presented them, so they really bring us nowhere."</p>
<p>They have been challenged many times, usually poorly and lazily. However, I do not know of any philosopher who has refuted them successfully. Aquinas remains an imposing figure in the history of philosophy; and the Thomistic philosophers of our age (Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Josef Pieper, Ralph McInerny, G.E.M. Anscombe, Peter Geach, et al) have made the Angelic Doctor more relevant and powerful than ever. There are more followers of his philosophical school than of any other. </p>
<p>"Besides everything Aquinas says is theoretical and I'd like some empirical proof."</p>
<p>Aquinas, in this mode, was a philosopher. He was making philosophical arguments, and very strong ones. Philosophy is what we have for the vast majority of what human beings, even in our times, hold to be true or false generally. In this way, demanding "empirical proof" is kind of silly. If you rejected or refused to believe in anything that was lacking "empirical proof," you would be a total outcast of society or otherwise seen as crazy.</p>
<p>"What's more worrisome is that you consider theology a science. Even theologians don't consider themselves scientists but philosophers."</p>
<p>Theologians consider themselves to be practicioners of the sacred science of theology (quite separate from philosophy, although philosophical method is utilized). There is more than one sense of the term "science." Theology is not physical or natural science -- and I would never compare it to such science, because that would be silly -- but it is a science nonetheless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, I do not know of any philosopher who has refuted them successfully.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You think one is "successful" in refuting others' ideas? It's completely arbitrary, so success in and of itself is arbitrary.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He was making philosophical arguments, and very strong ones.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While his arguments seem logical, in order for you to make such deductions, you must take his basic premises as fact. And more often than not, they may not be necessarily factual.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Theology is not physical or natural science -- and I would never compare it to such science, because that would be silly -- but it is a science nonetheless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have a source which says theology is a science? I have never heard of such, and I highly doubt there is any reputable source that would claim such. It's ludicrous.</p>
<p>It's somewhat funny, don't you think, that so many people still don't believe even though these ideas of Aquinas are supposedly so 'logical.'</p>
<p>Furthermore, the arguments of Aquinas, even IF true, do not necessarily imply the Christian God.</p>
<p>But a God nonetheless, therefore there is a religious improvement from being agnostic to being theistic. Nice posts Fides.</p>
<p>But realize I wrote 'IF.' If I have some free time this week, I'll be more than glad to post the arguments against Aquinas's logic. Some are quite convincing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
originally posted by kyledavid80 at post #143
1. Everything that exists needs a creator.
2. Nothing transcends logic.
3. God exists.
4. Therefore, God has a creator.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>if god had a creator, then that being would have a creator and there would be an endless string of higher creators</p>