The Instigator
byebyepats
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
cheekyhobo
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The trinity doctrine is fundamentally flawed.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 3198
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

byebyepats

Pro

The trinity doctrine can be best summed up by the following expression:

God = God the Father + God the Son + God the holy spirit

(It's important to note that the trinity doctrine does state that there is only ONE God but made up of 3 "parts" for lack of a better word.)

Now according to the Bible, God the Father is God. So therefore our expression would transform into:

God = God + God the son + God the holy spirit

Now assuming that there is ONE GOD which the bible clearly states, then according to the trinity, GOD is made up of 3 parts that consist of GOD himself, God the Son, and God the holy spirit. Tell me how in the world can God be included as one of the 3 parts that make up GOD. The logic here is fallacious. This exposes the inherent logical fallacy that we call the trinity.
cheekyhobo

Con

Simply put. God the Father=God the Son=Holy Spirit. All three make up God. IT seems confusing but in reality it is not. It is a perpetual state of existing as one being, whereas also existing as three. God just takes it upon himself to exist in three forms while still maintaining the status of existing as one being.

Certain ideas like this cannot be perfectly understood by human beings, because God IS on another playing field where our worldly ideas are only relative to our world. He thinks and exists in another form of being.
Debate Round No. 1
byebyepats

Pro

I think you need to read my first argument again. I agree with everything you have stated so far. But you are missing my main point.

Can you differentiate between God the Father and GOD? I don't think you can. Therefore, God is made up of 3 parts with one of the three parts being equal to himself. Look.

GOD = GOD the Father + God the Son + God the holy spirit

but GOD = God the Father because there is no difference between the two.

Now on the other hand you can differentiate between Jesus and God. You can also differentiate between God and the Holy spirit. But there is no differentiation between God and God the Father.

I have no problem with God having 3 parts. But I do have a problem with one of those 3 parts being God himself.

I'm going to give you one more example. Lets say I split some object in 3 parts. One of those 3 parts cannot be equal to the original object. This is just logic. So again, the trinity doctrine is based on flawed logic.
cheekyhobo

Con

I myself at odds with how you represent your argument and will continue supporting my claim. God has separated himself into three entities while maintaining the status of being one.
Debate Round No. 2
byebyepats

Pro

If you have a problem with how I represent my argument, then point out the flaw in my logic then. This is a debate. You can't just say "I have a problem with your argument" without explaining why my argument is wrong. Now stop being lazy and point out the flaw in my argument.
cheekyhobo

Con

Awww... but laziness is my life story! :) Pardon, but you have the burden of proof. So listen to Toybox's "He's my best Friend" and raise your spirits and quit being such a grouch!
Debate Round No. 3
byebyepats

Pro

byebyepats forfeited this round.
cheekyhobo

Con

cheekyhobo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by byebyepats 9 years ago
byebyepats
at least you understand what i am saying. I don't think my debating partner gets what im saying. And yes the bible does equate God the Father with GOD. (1 Peter 1:2)
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
I'm not taking on this debate (nor am I religious), but I'm pretty sure that the Bible makes no claims that God the "Father" is anymore God than God the "Son" or Holy Spirit. Rather the original equation is correct: Father + Son + Spirit = ONE GOD.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by lukepare 8 years ago
lukepare
byebyepatscheekyhoboTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
byebyepatscheekyhoboTied
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 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
byebyepatscheekyhoboTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by BahiraMalika 9 years ago
BahiraMalika
byebyepatscheekyhoboTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
byebyepatscheekyhoboTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Ylareina 9 years ago
Ylareina
byebyepatscheekyhoboTied
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:30