Medical knowledge is never complete. Based on the information we have the vaccine is both safe and effective. That does not mean that no one will have a negative reaction, but the same is true of most things we put in our bodies, even things that have not harmed us in the past. There is a change that eating a cheeseburger or salad will kill you. You may be taking or have taken medications that are considered safe that in the future will turn out not to be so safe even though they went through clinical trials without these negative effects being noticed

You don't define something into existence. — Philosopher19

No, you don't. But that is exactly what you are trying to do.

You cannot have more than one existence. — Philosopher19

But you can have more than one thing that exists.

You simply acknowledge the existence of that which perfectly exists. — Philosopher19

You do not know that perfect thing exist anywhere but the imagination.

You simply acknowledge the triangularity of that which is perfectly triangular. — Philosopher19

Perfect triangularity is either a hypothesis or part of a formal system.

You cannot have more than one perfect being because you cannot have more than one omnipresent or omnipotent being — Philosopher19

That is an assertion. You require your perfect, omnipotent God conforms to logic and the limits of your understanding. You seem to be using spatial terms for something that does not have a spatial dimension.

EDITED.

Defining something into existence is frivolous, but I will play along. Since nothing constrains God's existence there is nothing to prevents the existence of an infinite numbers of Gods.

[reply="Philosopher19;547011

It is only meaningless if you begin by defining God as perfect.

A couple of hints as to how to read Descartes Meditations:

Man's perfectibility - if we limit what we will to what we know we will never err. An immortal thinking thing with Descartes method for solving for any unknown will in time will unerringly.

Knowledge of perfection - Descartes argues that the idea of perfection cannot come from something imperfect. But note in the Fifth Meditation he argues that God's non-existence would be to lack a of perfection. The idea of perfection then can, and in fact does, arise from imperfection. We see that a thing is not perfect because it lacks something. We do not need the idea of perfection in order to see that something is not perfect.

I think the idea of adherence to the rules of language paints a false picture. It is not as if we follow a rule book. When Wittgenstein used the analogy of a game in PI one thing he pointed to was that not all games are played according to pre-established rules. Some games you make up as you go along.

No one creates the rules for how language is used, but if you wish to say something and be understood you use grammatical language. This applies even to the asocial and anti-social.

If God is only a concept then what happens if the concept ceases to exist?

Then of course, there is no God. — CountVictorClimacusIII

And the universe continues to function as it does.

Where are you coming from? Just wondering. — Book273

I taught, among other things, biomedical ethics before retiring.

My wife has a PhD in biochemistry and worked in the pharmaceutical industry for over thirty years and now does consulting for the industry. She retired last year as vice president and head of regulatory affairs for a pharmaceutical company. My daughter has a PharmD. My son a Masters in Pharmacology. The vaccine and safety protocols have been a frequent topic of conversation.

I use the same measure across the board, the measure I was taught to use to assess risk and benefit for all my patients. — Book273

What measure do you use when, as you say, you do not believe the science? What measure do you use when the available data indicates that the vaccines are safe and highly effective?

... best practice within the healthcare industry. — Book273

Best practice is to get the vaccine.

So outside of public policy — Book273

So, you follow best practice, except you don't.

I move forward with what my patient wants, not tell them what they want, and offer them the best advice I can, — Book273

There is a difference between informed consent and uninformed consent. If the best advice you can give them is not to believe the science then they are properly informing them. What an uninformed patient wants should not be the deciding factor.

Thus our imperfections mirror His, if he in fact, is not omnipotent, but instead, just a powerful enough being to create life, with that life being as flawed as Himself. — CountVictorClimacusIII

Or perhaps what is annihilated is the concept of God. This can be taken in two ways: 1) God is not limited by our concept, or 2) God is only a concept. If God is only a concept then what happens if the concept ceases to exist?

Risk benefit analysis can only be done on available data, not on fear of theoretical possibilities of adverse reactions. Based on available data the benefits far outweigh the risks. We have seem a dramatic decrease in the number of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. The evidence indicates that not only the person getting the vaccine benefits but others do as well. We also know that the vaccines have been effective against variations and stopping the development of variations.

I do not believe the science that I have been told. — Book273

The claim that not being vaccinated spreads the virus does not hold up to science. — Book273

This type of argument is all too common. You reject the science when it does not conform to your beliefs and appeal to science when you think it supports them.

But, if God had that one nagging question, “what happens if I cease to exist?” - He might then be motivated to find the answer through his own self-destruction. — CountVictorClimacusIII

The joke is, of course, he could never find the answer to this question. What does not exist does not know anything.

This is not God's thought experiment. If it were there would have been no need to do anything but think about it. But thinking about it could not yield the desired result.

The bits that were God exist because God does not. If through their self-assembling combination God will again exist then what happens when he ceases to exist is that he will again exist.

But that cannot be known unless the bits actually assemble themselves to become God. How can it be known that they will? The experiment is self-destructive and from the perspective of us bits, very possibly a failure.

If God's bits are capable of becoming God then this is something he would already know if he knew himself.

You have turned a thread about the Trinity into an attempt to discredit a highly regarded Biblical scholar. I am going to listen to my better angels and will stop responding to your endless evasiveness.

So, according to Ehrman, “people forged books to influence Christianity”. — Apollodorus

The claim of misattribution is not an accusation that begins with Ehrman. What he is saying is that if people had known who actually wrote the book they would regard it differently. The issue is whether this was an accepted practice and were people who read these works aware that these works were not written by the person named as author.

It seems clear that people were not aware because even today many are not aware of misattribution.

In any case, the question of authorship does not change what is and is not said in the Gospels.

Even you are denying the authenticity of the Gospel of John. — Apollodorus

I do not know who was the author of this work. What is known is that it differs markedly from the synoptic gospels and the writings of Paul. This difference is not insignificant, and yet you are doing everything you can to avoid addressing this.

As to the question of proof. I am not trying to prove anything. I am pointing to the evidence in the books and evaluating it. Again, you have avoided doing this.

So, he is implying that forgery was involved in the writing of early Christian texts. — Apollodorus

He is not implying anything. That the writings were falsely attributed is not in question. What he is contesting is whether false attribution was an accepted practice in antiquity.

You attempted to discredit Ehrman. The following makes it clear that you did not understand what was at issue.

Why would anyone forge four different scriptures instead of just one? — Apollodorus

It is not that someone forged these works. Their authenticity is not in question.

So now that the dust has settled we still see the problems you have been evading.

Did you read what the Wiki article says?

Although it has long been recognised that numerous books of the New Testament bear names of authors who are unlikely to have written them, it has often been said that it was an accepted practice in antiquity for a writer to attribute his work to a well-known figure from the past, or a teacher who has greatly influenced him.

Ehrman's contention is that what are referred to as "pseudepigraphs" or falsely attributed works, was not an accepted practice in antiquity. That they would have regarded false attribution as forgery.

This has nothing at all to do with the content of the books.

Each Gospel is a collection of different eye-witness reports, hence the difference between them. — Apollodorus

With the exception of John, there is no difference between them with regard to the claim that Jesus is God. None of them make such a claim.

Instead of addressing the issues at hand you attempt to divert attention to something you claim Ehrman said. You have not cited where he said this and have not said why it is relevant to the truth of the quoted material.

Using quotes from John does not show that Paul, Mark, Matthew, and Luke contain claims that Jesus is God.

1) The idea that God would have a begotten son is a pagan idea completely foreign to Judaism.

2) Again, where does he say this? Even a forgery has content that can be examined. Upon examination it is clear that the Gospels say nothing about Jesus being God.

1) Revisiting old issues in order to avoid the one at hand. The issue was what the term "son of God" meant in its Jewish context versus its pagan Christian context.

2) No, I am not able to quote non-existent statements. I am pointing to the conspicuous absence of any claim that Jesus is God in these Gospels. That does not prove anything. It does, however, raise a question you are doing your best to avoid. Why would they be silent on such an important claim?

3) Repeating the same accusation, one that he have failed to cite, has nothing to do with the truth of what was quoted. It is just evasiveness.

1) What Ehrman may or may not have said elsewhere has nothing to do with what he said in the material quoted. And as I said several times, what he said is supported by a significant number of Christian scholars.

2) What is at issue, as you know, is not whether Jesus called himself son of God, but whether the Gospels say that he is God. Nowhere in Paul or Matthew or Luke or Mark do we find such a claim. Given the importance of this claim its absence cannot simply be ignored. In John we find ambiguous claims that can be interpreted either way.

The question of whether Jesus is God arose here out of the question of whether there is a rational explanation of the Trinity. You say there is but you have not been able to provide such an explanation. You have done nothing more than kick up a lot of dust and make ad hominem attacks in hopes of obscuring and deflecting this inability.

If, as a matter of faith, one accepts the Trinity, then that is, as far as I'm concerned a personal matter. If, however, one claims that it is a rational doctrine then it is no longer simply a matter of faith and must be shown to be rational.

I have already made the arguments.

In fact, there are a number of posters on this thread who are actively trying to shut down the discussion, claiming there is no issue to be discussed at all. FWIW I think there is a discussion, but there seems to be no traction here. — Possibility

Some people are all too eager to make their beliefs known but defensively unwilling to have those beliefs examined or called into question.

I agree, but neither of them is my argument.

You don't seem to know how this community, who believes their spirit and state of mind go back to Jesus, thinks. — Gregory

That may be what they believe but it is inconsistent with the historical facts. There is no one single Christian community. Christianity began as a pluralistic religion. The Church Fathers tried to put an end to that. They were largely but not completely successful.

See my earlier post on the indwelling spirit. That was a belief that was suppressed by the Church Fathers. It threatened the hierarchy.

The Gospels make perfect sense as Christian documents. Why are you taking them historically? — Gregory

I am taking them historically because there is a long history of their establishment and disagreements between Christian sects. Some people think that questioning the Trinity means you are anti-Christian. History shows that the challenges to the doctrine were from the beginning largely from within Christianity. The history makes clear that the Trinity does not make perfect sense, if by perfect sense you mean rational, logical sense.

Most Christians just try to point towards their faith FOR YOU. — Gregory

Except:

So, there is no contradiction. It's just a matter of formulating it in a way that makes it acceptable to philosophy in general, not just to Christian philosophers. — Apollodorus

A formulation that is acceptable to philosophy is a rational argument.

But when you claim their story is inconsistent, you need to back that up and no one on this thread has done that. — Gregory

You have not been paying attention.

I am saying you can't disprove Christianity from logic. — Gregory

I agree. I said earlier:

Now one can make a rational argument for theological irrationality, and it has been done, but one cannot then argue that the irrational is rational. — Fooloso4

Im referring to humans on the individual level. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

So am I.

At conception and birth we are blank slates — Cartesian trigger-puppets

We are not. Anyone who has children knows this. It has been a long time since I read the literature, but the last I looked the idea of a tabula rasa had been rejected by developmental psychologists.

Before your conception and subsequently your birth, you had no opinions. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Children do not begin by doubting or with uncertainty, they begin by making associations, just like other animals. A bit later they then begin to tell themselves stories. They are quite convinced by their stories.

As Wittgenstein said, there can be no doubt without certainty.

The Gospels were written for believers who already believed God was Jesus. — Gregory

How do you know they already believed? And even if it were true, that still not not explain why something so important is not even mentioned.

Here's the thing. You have a vested interest in this I don't. If I'm wrong nothing changes. If you're wrong, and Jesus is not God, then your whole Christian world collapses. And so, it makes sense that you avoid the issue and pretend that there is no problem.

Christians believe that early believers already knew Jesus was God. — Gregory

Christians are not monolithic. They hold a variety of beliefs. If Matthew, Mark and Luke believed that Jesus was God why isn't that part of the good news message?

Okay, you got me, its Bart not Bert. You are still avoiding the issues.

Rationalists critique things that in reality they don't understand. I don't like how Christians try to prove their faith is true but they have every right to defend the logic of their beliefs from rationalist attacks — Gregory

Isn't a logical defense a rational defense? If it can be defended rationally or logically then it should be capable of being understood rationally or logically.

You have not rationally, logically, or otherwise explained away the reason why there is no mention or claim that Jesus is God.

For the third time, you misspelled Ehrman's name. — Apollodorus

What is the difference between:

'Ehrman's' and 'Ehrman’s'. The first is from my post, which you quoted. The second is yours.

Once again you avoid substantive matters. The following statement is either true or false. If you think it is false then point out the errors. Show where in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus calls himself God.

I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

Christians believe the Trinity and Incarnation were originally truths of oral tradition — Gregory

Some Christians, not all. I have previously pointed to the First Council of Nicaea where these issues were argued and left unresolved, but one side was declared the winner for political reasons.

There enough ways for you to doubt the Bible and enough reasons for Christians to see it as consistent. It depends of which eyes you use to read it — Gregory

This is a fundamental mistake of Christian apologists. There are plenty of Christians who do see the inconsistencies. This does not mean they doubt the Bible.

I am glad you see this. I am sure that others do as well. I have repeatedly pointed to the NT and he repeatedly turns away from it.

I did not misspell his name. His name is correctly spelled. It is the same spelling you used. The error is that I wrote 'scholar's' rather than 'scholar'.

The real issue is not typographical. This is simply your attempt to avoid addressing the issues raised.

Most US colleges and universities are notoriously dominated by atheists and anti-Christians like Ehrman. The same applies to journals of "Biblical scholarship". — Apollodorus

Yes, I figured you would say that. My response is to your claim:

The truth of the matter is that his theories have been widely criticized by Christians and scholars in general.

Scholars in general include university scholars and board members of journals.

Once again, you have done everything you can to avoid addressing the issues.

For the third time:

According to Hurtado:

... To anyone familiar with a historical approach to the topic, these will not be novel conclusions. Indeed, they have been affirmed by a significant number of New Testament scholars, especially over the past several decades.

Now unless you are able to identify these scholars you have no basis to label them all as atheist or anti-Christian. The work they do stands on its own merits.

I’m vaguely aware of how Christianity came to be, and I’m not trying to deny any of it. I wasn’t aware of much that’s been discussed, so it may just be a confused thread from a confused mind. — Pinprick

I do not think you are confused. The Gospels do not form a single coherent whole. Most notably the differences between John and the canonical gospels. And then the imposition of the doctrines of the Church Fathers.

Which is the better guide to living depends on the individual, her capacities, desires, and inclinations. Some people want be shown the way and would otherwise be lost. Others are motivated by inquiry and want to find their own way.