The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

The existance of the holy trinity is probroly the truth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,606 times Debate No: 23049
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (6)

 

frozen_eclipse

Con

I feel as if the trinity cannot logically exist. I am a Christian and believe in god but I believe the trinity is an absurd argument. The belief in Jesus, god, and the holy ghost all being one being just doesnt make sense to me. Im not sure what sects of Christianity believes this but I would like to reason on this topic.
Though I may be the instigator it is pros position to defend the validity of the trinity existing, and it being logical. Thus the BOP belongs to pro.

1. The holy trinity: the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to some Christian dogma....................http://www.merriam-webster.com......


Structure

1- acceptace
2-posistions
3-rebuttals
4-summarization
thett3

Pro

I accept. Given my opponents statements regarding his faith I am presuming that the debate presupposes the existence of God and Jesus, and the debate is about the logic of the trinity using that framework.
Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Con

Due to lack of time I will place one argument here. I will possibly introduce more later.

Since my opponent has the BOP it seems the meat of this debate wont come until refutations. Until then I will provide some structure as to why the trinity is probroly not the truth.


How the bible defines each aspect contradicts The trinity doctrine.

The trinity teaches that God, Jesus, And the holy ghost are all one. Funny thing is no where in the bible does it clearly expose anything to support is teaching of the three beings being one. Not even the first century Christians followed this belief. Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual. The Bible could not be any clearer on this. As God states: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory."(Isaiah 42:8)

I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God." (Isaiah 45:5) "You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth."—Psalm 83:18.

If all these three beings were one why would they be called different things? Also if all three were to be considered most high over earth then there would be three supreme gods. There would not be a supreme god because all three would be tied in power. If we follow the trinitarian line of logic then Jesus is a supreme god. This scripture contradicts that.

"I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God." (Isaiah 45:5)

Notice the language of this next scripture........."Go away, Satan! For it is written, 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'"—Matthew 4:10.

Jesus was talking to Satan about god in this instance. If Jesus really was god, then why wouldn't he have said worship me? Jesus clearly says it is him alone that you must worship. There is no other conclusion to make here other than that God is a singular being.


---"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all."—1 Timothy 2:5, 6.

If we follow the trinitarian line of logic, then god, Jesus, and the holy ghost died that day. As we know if god died ( witch he cannot since he's omnipotent,omniscient.....etc)......the universe would probroly collapse witch didnt happen.

Deut 6:4.....Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

This verse proves that the one who is almighty god is one god and only one person holds universal sovereignty.

john 8:42....Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

this proves that Jesus is lower than god, and is not god.

acts 2:4....And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

acts 2:17....."'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

acts 2:33...........Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

those 3 scriptures suggest that holy spirit is not a person.

Trinitarianism is a paradox to scriptures.

"The doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons ....the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.

"The word "Trinity" comes from the Latin noun "trinitas" meaning "three are one." The Trinity expresses the belief that God is one Being made up of three distinct Persons who exist in co-equal, co-eternal communion as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

"three separate and distinct persons that are called God"

"According to the Trinity, there are three separate "persons" in one divine "substance." These separate persons are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The belief of the Trinity is a paradox * the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God; yet, there are not three Gods, but one. In fact, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. "..........http://trinityfalse.bravehost.com...

Rev 4:2- And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and ONE sat on the throne.

This contradicts the idea that all three will sit on one throne.

Mark 10:18- And Jesus said unto him, why callest thou me good? there is none good but ONE, that is, God (the Father).

Why would he be saying this if all were one? If all are one then all must be good right? this verse clearly negates that claim

thett3

Pro

Thanks Con. I'll refute your case in the next round. I'll be arguing that the trinity is most a coherent nature of God.

I. Nature of God

Prima facie, the idea of any being being 3 beings seems to be absurd! But this is the perception we get from our limited human perspective, which is highly flawed anyway. For one, it's entirely logical that the true nature of God is beyond human comprehension--indeed in light of the fact that God created the universe ex nihilo, as Biblical Scholar Matheww Henry writes[1]: " The manner in which this work was effected: God created it, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. By the ordinary power of nature, it is impossible that any thing should be made out of nothing; no artificer can work, unless he has something to work on. But by the almighty power of God it is not only possible that something should be made of nothing (the God of nature is not subject to the laws of nature), but in the creation it is impossible it should be otherwise, for nothing is more injurious to the honour of the Eternal Mind than the supposition of eternal matter. Thus the excellency of the power is of God and all the glory is to him."

The creation of something from nothing requires an amount of power that literaly defies human comprehension! We canot even begin to imagine how things can just begin to exist, and it's therefore logical that God's true nature cannot be revealed to us given humanities limitations.

Rich Deem brings up the hypothetical example of a Cube shaped God who created a 2 dimensional universe[2]:

" This god, being three-dimensional, can choose to interact with the two-dimensional universe or not. This cube god decides to reveal himself to Mr. and Mrs. Flat, as well as their friend, Mr. Level in this two-dimensional universe. The cube god places himself above the plane of the two-dimensional universe directly in front of Mrs. Flat and extends a corner of his cube into the plane of the two-dimensional universe. Mrs. Flat sees this revelation of her god as a point. Next, the cube god places himself above the plane of the two dimensional universe directly in front of Mr. Flat and extends the intersection of two sides of his cube into the plane of the two dimensional universe. Mr. Flat sees this revelation of his god as a line segment. Then, the cube god places himself above the plane of the two dimensional universe directly in front of Mr. Level and extends an entire side into the plane of the two dimensional universe. Mr. Level sees this revelation of his god as a square."

Thus, while 3 different beings see Cube God, they all see him as a seperate entity because his true nature is contradictory to the onyl worldview they are able to obtain. Thus, given that God has a nature incomprehensible to human beings, it only makes sense that the way God reveals himself are hard for Humans to understand.

The Bible justifies this well: For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

II. Scriptual basis for the Trinity

given the illustrations above, it's logically possible if not probable that the trinity is true. However, the Bible itself justifies this on multiple accounts from literally dozens of verses[3]. J. Hampton Keathly elabrates better than I ever could[4]: "

(1) The Father is called God (John 6:27; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; Phil. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:2).

(2) Jesus Christ, the Son is declared to be God. His deity is proven by the divine names given to Him, by His works that only God could do (upholding all things, Col. 1:17; creation, Col. 1:16, John 1:3; and future judgment, John 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, John 17:5; omnipresence, Matt. 28:20; omnipotence,Heb. 1:3; omniscience, Matt. 9:4), and by explicit statements declaring His deity (John 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13;Heb. 1:8).

(3) The Holy Spirit is recognized as God. By comparing Peter’s comments in Acts 5:3 and 4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (vs. 3), Ananias was lying to God (vs. 4). He has the attributes which only God can possess like omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10) and omnipresence (1 Cor. 6:19), and He regenerates people to new life (John 3:5-6, 8; Tit. 3:5), which must of necessity be a work of God for only God has the power of life. Finally, His deity is evident by the divine names used for the Spirit as “the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor. 6:11), which should be understood as “the Spirit, who is our God.”



My opponent and I will have a good discussion about the meaning of the scriptures in the next round.

Until then, however, the logical conclusion is that belief in the Trinity is the more logical worldview.

1. http://www.ccel.org...;
2. http://www.godandscience.org...;
3. http://www.layevangelism.com...;
4. http://bible.org...
Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Con

This round we will examine each other cases.

My opponents points

The Nature of god

This whole section is describing creation and some type of cube god. Im sorry but my opponents example, I just don't understand it whatsoever because its not logical atleast in my opinion. Also describing creation doesnt prove why the holy trinity is the truth. Describing god, as a cube seems to confuse more than it convinces.

"Rich Deem brings up the hypothetical example of a Cube shaped God who created a 2 dimensional universe[2]:"

by judgement of this first point it seems the trinity is based off of a hypothetical theory. As I've stated in my case the words trinity don't even appear in the bible. God wants us to know and understand his nature right? If this was true then he would have bluntly told us that he exists in these three forms. Also if we look at the speech of the bible it uses words that are used for distinction from one being. Example: colossians 1:3 " We thank god the father of our lord Jesus Christ always when we pray for you." Obviously the lord and father re indicated as different people. Hence the different names. If god, the holy ghost, and Jesus were one god, then why would they even need different names?

"Prima facie, the idea of any being being 3 beings seems to be absurd! But this is the perception we get from our limited human perspective, which is highly flawed anyway. For one, it's entirely logical that the true nature of God is beyond human comprehension."

So your saying that we should believe a ideal that doesnt make sense because we have a limited perspective on things and thus should not look for the logic in reasoning to judge if something is probroly right? It seems that's what my opponent is arguing. Im sorry but this point makes no sense. It is our human perspective that tells us that the sun is out. Since we have a limited perspective should we then think inversely of all things and say that since my perspective is limited then I should ignore the signs that the sun is out being the bright rays and my forced scwinting because of it? Absolutely not. It is our human perspective that tells us no to touch that hot stove. We ought to use the information we get to make conclusions o the probability of things. It is human perspective that decides whether a religion is made up or not. Should we ignore these clear signs for the sake of inverse thinking. No, Thus we need to use our human perspective to make logical conclusions of things rather than ignoring reason as it seems my opinion is promoting.

Also we can comprehend the true nature of god. Why? Because he tells us about his nature. Psalms 90:2...bottom portion......"even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are god."......In this scripture he tells us that time isnt a restriction to his life, and that he will be god forever. So it is illogical to believe that gods nature is completely beyond human comprehension. Lastly on this point why would I and humans alike believe in a god that we cant understand?

"Thus, while 3 different beings see Cube God, they all see him as a separate entity because his true nature is contradictory to the only worldview they are able to obtain. Thus, given that God has a nature incomprehensible to human beings, it only makes sense that the way God reveals himself are hard for Humans to understand."

Even if this suggestion was true that we cannot perceive gods true nature and we perceive him differently than what he is, Where's the scriptural backing of This. There is none. Even if this was true god would still not call himself father,son, and holy ghost and even adding distinction to each, and praying to himself(Jesus prayed to god, if we accept trinity teachings than god was just praying to himself. Where's the logic in that?) For what reason would he do that? Knowing that we have a limited perception of things, being that god is all knowing, he would know that we would not understand this. The problem is though that god doesnt say anything about this. so why would this asertation be true?


Scriptural basis for the trinity.

Im not going to post every single scripture here of my opponents because most contradict his points so there's really no need to post all of these scriptures when there contradictory.

(1) The Father is called God

John 6:27---- "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

If anything this proves the separation of the two.

John 20:17----"Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

He just said my father, father and son cannot logically be one. He also said to my god and your god. my opponent said that all these entities are equal in power and are all equally one god? If so the possession of the word my contradict his own statement. By saying my god this signifies that one god may be higher than another witch contradicts my opponents case.

(2) Jesus Christ, the Son is declared to be God.

Colossians 1:17----He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

This is a prime example of a scripture being misapplied because someone didnt read the whole paragraph instead of looking at one sentence.......look at colossians 1:15-16.....15 "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."


remember that scripture I posted earlier stating that god is time indefinite? God wasn't created. Hes always been here. so yes Jesus was the first born of all creation. He helped god create all other existence. So Jesus and God are not the same person.

John 17:5----"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

This does not prove the existence of the trinity. It only proves that Jesus and god existed before the earth was made.

John 20:28----Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Yes at times jesuses followers would call him god at times, but Jesus would always correct them.....lets look at the rest of the paragraph.......John 20:31...."But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." So obviously Jesus never claimed to be god.

3) The Holy Spirit is recognized as God.

By comparing Peter’s comments in Acts 5:3 and 4, we see that in lying to the Holy Spirit (vs. 3), Ananias was lying to God (vs. 4)

We all know that the holy spirit is something that god gives. So it could be said lying to the holy spirit would be lying to god. The holy spirit and god are still separate things. Its kind of like how the spirit and the body are different. This is logical but adding in Jesus contradicts all positions from this stance. Jesus is not part of god.

Im almost out of characters. Lets remember my points

How the bible defines each aspect contradicts The trinity doctrine. , Trinitarianism is a paradox to scriptures.



Sources

http://www.biblegateway.com...

http://trinityfalse.bravehost.com......


Thanks to my opponent for the great debate.

thett3

Pro

In this rebuttal, I'll be addressing the weaknesses in my Opponents case.

Bible Contradicts trinity

General critique:
My Opponent is presuming Biblical innerrency, which is illogical. The Bible was written by men inspired men yes, but still men who are ultimately fallible. Prefer my logical arguments regarding the nature of God to his presumptions.

He's misunderstanding the Holy Trinity. It's not like "oh there are actually three Gods", but rather that Gods nature is that of th Father, Son, and holy Ghost. Remember the Cube God example where God's full nature is unexplicable to his creations. This turns most of his arguments describing God as a singular entity. Yes, God is the one and only, but he is a complex God. Jesus being a part of God in no way takes away from his "oneness".

He tries to show that God is Jesus's soveirgn. I don't doubt that he is, given that Jesus is a part of God--just as my arm is a part of me. He argues that Jesus is below God using Josh 8:42: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me." This fails to disprove the trinity because while it does speak of Christ as a servant of God, this could be much like parts of my body are controlled by other parts--that is, Jesus is a part of God. Take note of the bolded portion as well, who did Christ come with if not a piece of the Lord and the Holy Spirt as they are all one being? This verse is thus turned.

Recall also that my opponent has not explaied what exactly the Son and Holy Spirit are if not a piece of the overall Lord. My opponent makes no logical arguments at all, prefering to cite an array of Biblical verses as if they are a matter of fact, when he hasn't proven them to be so.

Sorry for the shortness of this rebutall, I will go into further detail later as I'm running short of time, but it needs to be noted that since my opponent hasnt resented any logic based arguments (despite claiming initially to find the trinity as illogical) you affirm by default since I have.
Debate Round No. 3
frozen_eclipse

Con

In this round I will address the critique above. Next round is when I will let it rip. Lol.

Bible Contradicts trinity General critique

Wait so are you saying here that since the bible contains errors then that gives men the authority to override scriptures in the bible in whichever way they want? Especially in the case of the trinity where the scriptures don't back it up? If your awnser to this is yes then I am truly worried.

He's misunderstanding the Holy Trinity. It's not like "oh there are actually three Gods", but rather that Gods nature is that of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost.

I perfectly understand your position. It's just that I am contentious toward it because the bible, god, and jesuses statements seem to contradict your claims. Example;

"Matthew: 4: 8-10

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. "

http://www.esvbible.org...


First, god created earth so it originated from god. So it makes no sense for satan to offer god something witch he already created. Next, Thou shalt worship the lord thy god. If all these beings are one, Then for humans to make a logical conclusion witch supports the trinity the scripture would have to read..."worship me." Thing is it doesnt. So in a logical sense, the only conclusion we can make based on logic and phonetics is that this god that jesus is referring to is greater than himself. Witch contradicts my opponents claim that all three beings are equal.


Remember the Cube God example where God's full nature is inexplicable to his creations.

Why do we even need these examples when the bible clearly explains the nature of god. We need to rely on the bible or the results will be confusion and misapplication my example being the teachings of the trinity. The bible doesnt support the concept of a cube god.

Yes, God is the one and only, but he is a complex God. Jesus being a part of God in no way takes away from his "oneness".

You can't have two sovereigns or two kings at one time. It would create confusion among the subjects. One would say something and then the other would say something different. We don't see examples of this in the bible witch further disproves the teachings of the trinity.


He tries to show that God is Jesuses sovereign. I don't doubt that he is, given that Jesus is a part of God--just as my arm is a part of me.

The example of a arm being part of the body is not equivalent to god and jesuses relationship. God is his Father. Jesus is gods son. Using my opponents fallacious logic, Jesus is part of god and god is his son but Jesus is god and is The father whom gave him life. Makes no since right? This is seems to be the logic that my opponent wants us to follow. The reasoning part of my brain rejects this line of thinking because it is unreasonable.


He argues that Jesus is below God using Josh 8:42: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me." This fails to disprove the trinity because while it does speak of Christ as a servant of God, this could be much like parts of my body are controlled by other parts--that is, Jesus is a part of God.

I don't remember using this scripture but I will attack this point anyway. Wait, my opponent is trying to say that god, Jesus, and the holy ghost are one and equal in power. How is a servant equal to being a god as it states in that scripture? How are they equal in power if one is a servant to another?


Now to state what each of these beings are witch I will back up with scriptures.

1.Holy spirit- a force of used by god / what god uses to further his purposes. A gift from god.

John 14:26--But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

acts 2:28--And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

2.God- The creator of all things, God of all things, sovereign of all things, one god.

Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.

3. Jesus-son of god.

John 3-16---For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Do to my opponents multiple contradictions. Im sure no one is convinced that the trinity is logical. Please lets not forget my points.

How the bible defines each aspect contradicts The trinity doctrine. , Trinitarianism is a paradox to scriptures.



thett3

Pro

I'll first go over critical voters, and then make a rebuttal to my opponents arguments/objections.

Voters:

1. He never properly disputes my analysis regarding the complex nature of God, instead preferring to cite misunderstood or misinterpreted Biblical verses. This leads me to my second voter:

2. He never proves Biblical innerrency. There is no reason to assume that the Bible is without flaw, so you need to prefer my logical analysis regarding the trinity to his Scriptures that he never explains anyway.

3. He misunderstands the Trinity time and time again. Take this Statement from his round 4: "You can't have two sovereigns or two kings at one time. It would create confusion among the subjects." but we all know that the Trinity is not stating that there actually three Gods, but rather that the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit are one and the same. Prefer my arguments because they're based on a framework that properly understands the trinity.

4. (Critical) He never fully explains what the Son and Holy Spirit are, if they are not a part of God. You cannot negate because he doesn't tell you what relation these other entities have with God.

5. He drops all of my scriptures showing the Trinity to be true.


Rebuttal

Con asks: " so are you saying here that since the bible contains errors then that gives men the authority to override scriptures in the bible in whichever way they want?" My response: Yes and No. God gave us the ability to rationalize and feel morality for a reason. The Bible was written after all by men, so things that go against logic (such as two entities with Godlike powers bearing no relation to God) need to be thrown out as human error. Particuarly when it's a mere word that changes the meaning of a verse after centuries of translation.

My opponent essentially cites a bunch of verses showing that Jesus was a servant of God, so therefore he can't be a part of God, yet he completely drops my counter that Jesus as a part of God would inherently serve God, just as my arm is my servant, it is still a part of me. You have to affirm on this reason alone, if Jesus is indeed a servant of God, than the best way for him to be an unwavering servant is to be a part of God himself.

He argues: "the only conclusion we can make based on logic and phonetics is that this god that jesus is referring to is greater than himself" First off, my opponent basically said we need to judge his scripture off of the way its written, but the problem is that the Bible has been translated and re translated many many times, so rejecting an ENTIRE school of thought out of hand because of ONE verse is logically insane. But more importantly, of course Jesus was telling them to Worship God. If I told my opponent to worship thett3, it would still be referring to me, and the parts of God (Father and Spirit) that were not in Jesus outweigh Christ in greatness (2/3 to 1/3). Matthew 4:8-10 is therefore turned.

He continues in response to the Cube God example:

"Why do we even need these examples when the bible clearly explains the nature of god. We need to rely on the bible or the results will be confusion and misapplication my example being the teachings of the trinity. The bible doesnt support the concept of a cube god. " Yet he failed to prove that the Bible is the only thing we need to look to when addressing Gods nature; moreover he ignores my analysis that Gods nature HAS TO be outside of human understanding, because creatio ex nihilo literally defies human comprehension. Thus it only makes sense for God to appear as more than one entity. He commits a strawman fallacy, arguing that " Using my opponents fallacious logic, Jesus is part of god and god is his son but Jesus is god and is The father whom gave him life. ". He is, once again, assuming that Gods nature must be singular. God did not create Jesus because Jesus is a art of God, and God is by very definition outside of creation! Since he's misunderstood my position, I'll extend it cleanly accross and urge a vote in affirmation.

The one worthy objection he brings up is that if Jesus is Gods servant, how can Jesus be equal to God in power? Well above all, there was nothing in the definition of the Trinity designating that they had to be equal in magnitude; however this has already been cleared up anyway. The two parts of God not in Jesus are greater in power than Christ, since they represent 2/3rds of the One God.

My opponent attempts to explain that the Holy Spirit is "a force of used by god / what god uses to further his purposes." yet there's nothing in this explanation that precludes it from being a part of God. Jesus is obviously the Son of God, and yet the relationship is more complex than that. Christ is a part of God that came to Earth to let man be forgiven of their sins. My opponent never tried to argue that his definitions preclude the Spirit and Son from being a part of God, and never explained what power levels they DO have! Therefore his position is flawed from the start because he doesn't tell you what these other Godheads exactly are. I have.

My opponent misunderstands the Trinity and my position, and doesn't meet his burden of proof as the instigator of this debate. I therefore urge the readers to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
hmmm extremely close i see
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
Quite welcome :)
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Alright, I understand your reasoning now, thank you :)
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
1. Your position in this debate is that God is a Trinity. If you can't know the nature of God, you can't know God is a Trinity. It's a rather glaring weak point.

2. The problem with attacking the accuracy of the Bible is that if you're relying on it too, then it leaves you open to accusations that you're simply overriding scripture with a doctrine based on nothing but personal preference, which is what Con accused you of doing in the start of his R4. You responded by saying that is allowable in cases where you believe there to be a logical impossibility in scripture, and that jumps you right back into a losing scriptural debate.

I don't mind discussing an RFD as long as the conversation isn't hostile. And this is quite civil.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
1. Yeah, but how is that claiming I know exactly how God is? The argument was that it's a reasonable assumption that God would appear to be contradictory to humans.

2. Right, but where did he prove Biblical innerrency? Why should we even believe the Scriptures?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be annoying I genuinely appreciate your feedback, I'm just curious.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
Follow up 1: Here "For one, it's entirely logical that the true nature of God is beyond human comprehension," and here "Thus, given that God has a nature incomprehensible to human beings...," and also here "he ignores my analysis that Gods nature HAS TO be outside of human understanding"

Follow up 2: Con's winning the scriptural debate. Decisively. The trinity simply isn't in the scripture. You have to read it in based on external philosophizing. So, you try to minimize scriptural relevance by putting the nature of god beyond human comprehension. Con challenges by promoting human understanding as the only available tool by which to ascertain the validity of propositions (later focused on the comprehnsion ot the bible). Since neither of you really engage the other's argument directly, I choose which one is stronger. And the one without a central internal contradiction wins.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
" Pro argues that understanding what god is beyond human understanding, then goes on to explain how he understands what god is"

Follow up questions:

1. Where did I say that?
2. Where did my opponent make that attack? Because if he didn't, you can't judge off of that.
Posted by cbrhawk1 4 years ago
cbrhawk1
I do believe in the trinity, but I don't believe all three are equal to God. Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit mean different things. Jesus is simply the last in the direct bloodline of Adam, which was the major sacrifice that I believe could have been made to save mankind.

Holy Spirit is the essence of Jesus given to every man, woman, and child as a result of our salvation. Because of salvation, we can be reborn even through our sins. The awakening of the Holy Spirit is the result of this "rebirth," I think.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
awwwr...ok
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Hey bro, I might have to forfeit my third round. My friend is coming over, and I might be able to squeeze in my rebuttal before then, but if not just extend your arguments please.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
frozen_eclipsethett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh come on dustpelt. Read the debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
frozen_eclipsethett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more sources.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
frozen_eclipsethett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I found Con's argumentation to be concise and well directed while Pro's to be fragmented and contradictory. Pro argues that understanding what god is beyond human understanding, then goes on to explain how he understands what god is. Pro isn't going to win a scriptural debate, since the trinty was an extra-scriptural concept added after the Arian controversy. A scriptural reading will of course support Con, and indeed, Con's interpretations are much more believable. S&G for formatting.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
frozen_eclipsethett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Matthew. There is no justification given for the sources being better. You need to explain WHY they are better.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
frozen_eclipsethett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a good debate for both sides but throughout the entire debate I Con's arguments to be less than potent. While he tries to use scripture to prove that the 3 are not in fact 1 he never manages to do it successfully. Just because God said something about the Holy Spirit doesn't mean the Spirit isn't part of God etc. Pro successful refutes Con's arguments while Con struggled or dropped refutes while responding to Pro. Arguments to Pro. Good debate overall.
Vote Placed by Matthew3.14 4 years ago
Matthew3.14
frozen_eclipsethett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was pretty close, but Con used sources a bit better than Pro.