Ooopse, where’s my manners …
Welcome to the board tkbarbarian you raise a good point about a singular God being more simple with less messy theological contrivances needed to allow him/her/it to play three parts at the same time.
Minor nitpick, Jesus is mentioned in Roman sources, certainly in Flavio Josefo and I think that he was also mentioned in Suetonio’s “Live of the 12 Caesars” and in Tacito’s “Annals”, although it is a controversial issue if they really wrote about Jesus or if medieval monks “planted” the evidence (also none of those writers was a contemporary to Jesus)
tkbarbarian, welcome to the boards, and (sory to be so rude) I see one fundament flaw with your presentation: Jesus is on record as having talked to God (or trying to). This makes it more difficult to believe in a one (sane) god explanation, over a triumverate.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the triumverate was simply composed of three separate beings, though. (All presuming that there is in fact some sort of God, which appears to be a premise of this thread.)
Don’t know that I’ve ever heard Occam’s Razor referred to as “secular dogma” before. You sure you want to go with that?
I think you need to sharpen the razor a bit more. While I suppose one uneccessary supernatural entity is simpler than three, it rather begs the question of why we need any. In other words, I think we have to suspend logic to even be having this debate. If you accept one unexplainable supernatural entity, how is it any more of a stretch to accept three? An all-powerful God who chooses to remain empirically undetectable to us and reveal Himself only in the most indirect ways that are objectively the equivalent of non-existence, and a God who does all those things plus incarnates Himself as a human, are precisely equal in believability.
And I never have really understood the “greatest conceivable being” argument. First of all, merely conceiving of something does not mean it exists. Second, it’s not possible to conceive of a “greatest” being without leading to an infinite regression. I can always trump your “greatest being” by conceiving of another being that can kick your being’s butt, making him the greatest being.
Oh, and welcome to the SDMB, tkbarbarian 
Thank you all for the welcome. I agree completely that using this elegance criteria in the fullest sense does lead many to conlude that there is no God. I didn’t include it as one of my proposals due to the topic of the thread!
I would say however that some may see all of the probabalistic phenomenon involved in scientific theories of creation and evolution are less elegant that the entire process being guided by some divine being. The “entropy argument” is used by many to suggest that evolution and part of creation is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics - as order seems to be coming from chaos. This seems to have some appeal among non-scientists but realising some of the subtleties of good old law #2 puts these to rest.
The other point raised was by begbert2:
“Jesus is on record as having talked to God (or trying to). This makes it more difficult to believe in a one (sane) god explanation, over a triumverate.”
Perhaps it is just too early in the morning, but I’m not completely clear what you suggest here. If you pre-suppose Jesus’ role in the Trinity I see your point, but since Jesus’ divinity is what is up for debate this may not be as relevant.
Apologies for referring to Ockham’s Razor as “Secular Dogma” - no offence intended. I’m just a little like that- dogma in the sense of authoritative principles are often assosciated with religions but I think the term is equally applicable to society in general and scientists in particular.
I again completely agree with the point that there is a “third proposal”, namely no God but I didn’t include it as its not what we are debating (primarily…) I also did not intend for my use of the phrase “the greatest conceivable being” to imply I was presenting some kind of proof for God’s existence. I am familiar with several such ontological arguments and they all suffer from similar problems to that which you suggest. I was simply using it as a loose definition for God; I wanted to avoid the phrase Judeo-Christian-Islamic etc.
No offense taken; my point was that if you are applying the word “dogma” to Occam’s Razor, presumably meaning that its value as a tool for reasoning is unfounded, then you ought to expound on that. The word “dogma” implies a certain amount of blind acceptance of an established principle. I consider the Razor to be an eminently practical tool that has proven itself of value. If you are implying that it is merely accepted as authoritative without good reason, I’d like to hear why you think so. (Maybe that’s a whole seperate thread, though.)
And sorry for misunderstanding your usage of “greatest conceivable being”.
I don’t really want you to prove that Mohamed was a prophet. I want to show you that it is as impossible for a Christian to prove that Jesus is God as it is for a Muslim to prove that Mohamed was a prophet. This are tenets of faith and not provable.
I don’t believe neither in gods nor in prophets, but I am not able to disproof their existances.
I know of the mention to Jesus in the “Testimonium Flavianum”. But it is very unlikely that an orthodox Jew, writing for the Romans would call Jesus “the Messiah” and would paint the Roman Prefect Pilate in bad colors.
As you said, it is probable that the text was inserted by a Christian copist.
I’m back, I wasn’t avoiding the debate, I just don’t visit this site very often. I could not in my wildest imagination believe I could disprove the existence of God. Any more than I could disprove the existence of kjhawgdfjhga,ssfhcmghbewddj,dhggf,hjkwevgf. I simply fail to believe in God, and the entire controversy has no relevance in my life nor what I consider to be my universe of meaning.