This House Believes God Exists As A Trinity
Debate Rounds (4)
I want to see how far fundies will go. The resolution that is being debates boils down to Pro arguing that if God existed then logically, or rationally He would exist in a Trinity. I have laid out the rules below:
1. The Burden of Proof rests on the Proposition.
2. It is my duty to show logical errors in Pro's arguments, and it is Pro's job to logically prove that God exists ina Trinity.
3. No arguments may be based on the Bible.
4. Proposition should start immediately, and pass on the last round.
5. The first official postings of arguments will be positive case only.
6. No new arguments later on.
I wish the best of luck to my opponent!
Let us begin.
Well I guess I am one hell of an idiot, I had meant to be Con. However since the debate has started I do not want to be rude and so it is only right that I act as a devil's advocate and defend the resolution. Since this happened I ask the voters to ignore rule 4.
(1.1)This debate is shall not discuss whether God exists, this debate will discuss that if God exists what is the best explanation for Him. I will argue that if God is present He exists in a Trinity, and my opponent must provide arguments for a different form of God.
(1.2)I will at times mention God's Spirit I am not referring to the Holy Ghost, where the Holy Ghost is mentioned He shall be mentioned by this name. The Father shall be mentioned as Jehovah, the Son either are Jesus, Christ or both. The Spirit of God is the essence of God when all three of these Beings are One.
(1.3)For full disclosure I am taking my arguments from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, the German logician, philosophy and the father of dialectic logic.
(1.4)Dialectic Logic is affirmed almost unanimously by the general poulation of Philosophers and Physicists so I will not delve very deep into it, I will however use it in my argument.
(2.1)There is indeed then a distinction of the Three, and yet all Three are one. I will clarify these distinctions and first of all show how the Three are different and the same. Sine I am arguing for a Trinitian claim I am allowed to define this claim of mine, these definitions must be accepted.
(2.2)Jehovah then is the Father. He sits at the throne. The nature of Jehovah is that of pure a priori, as in He transcends completely the confines of Time, Space and Number. Jehovah then is the absolute Spirit, He is the thesis of God. Jehovah represents all that purely Godly, and His Will is the Will of God.
(2.3)Jesus exists as the Son, He is the anti-thesis of God. Jesus was God in human flesh, so that He is God and is in direct contradiction to Jehovah. He represents the Human God and as He was in flesh He was bound by Time, Space and Number. He was at once transcendent and immanent. He is an a posteriori conceptualization of the a priori Jehovah. I think this should make it quite clear.
(2.4)The Holy Spirit is then the Holy Ghost, He is a reflection of God, one that forms the synthesis of the Union of God. He is not an a posteriori conceptualization, nor an a priori; neither transcendent nor immanent but the very bridge of the two. He does not transcend Time, Space and Number, as He is not confined therwith, rather He is the very Time, Space and Number, not so as the boundaries of the human cognition but rather Ontologically where He exists as the bridge.
3. The Argument For The Son:
(3.1)God wishes to be percieved. For in being percieved only, God becomes actual via its particularization in the minds of “His” finite material creatures. Thus, in our consciousness of God, we somehow serve to realize his own self-consciousness, and, thereby, his own perfection.
(3.2)We know that God created mankind, there is no other rational explanation for the Creation of mankind than that that God wished to be percieved to realize His own perfection.
(3.3)Jehovah however transcends man's powers of understanding, so it must be that to be percieved God must become the Son for only in becoming the Son goes God gain human flesh so that humans may percieve God.
(3.4)God is not an abstraction but a concrete God...God, considered in terms of his eternal Idea, has to generate the Son, has to distinguish himself from himself; he is the process of differentiating, namely, love and Spirit.
4. The Argument For Jehovah:
(4.1)God could not exist solely as the Son for then God would become an abstraction, to the extent that God would not be God. If He is the Son so He may be percieved it is only so that Jehovah may be percieved. For if God exists solely in human form then He does so only as He diffrentiates it from the Father.
(4.2)Therefore since the Son must exist since God and humanity exits and the Son can only exist so long as Jehovah exists the Father exists.
5. The Argument For the Holy Ghost:
(5.3)Since the form of dialectic logic is that the anti-thesis negates the perfect thesis to form the synthesis, and since Jehovah is the thesis and is purely transcendent, and Jesus is the anti-thesis so purely immanent then it must follow that there is a Holy Spirit perfectly in between.
(5.4)We have therefore shown that God must exist in a Trinity.
1. I will demonstrate that "God" is not a Trinity. Accurate definitions must be given. The word "god" is the English word for the Hebrew word "elohim". English defines "god" as "a deity having divine status, quality, or nature." However, "Elohim" is plural for eloh/eloah, meaning "mighty". When pluralized it signifies "mighty ones". Therefore, God is Elohim & indicates "mighty deities".
2a.. Divine Status means "of or like God" having "relative social, professional, or other standing" like God.
2b. Divine Quality means "of or like God" having "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind" OR "a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something" like God. As I will explain the Holy Spirit has no "divine quality" like the "mighty ones" we call Father & Son.
2c. Divine Nature means "of or like God" having "the inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of" God.
3a. My arguments will spring out of a.) common knowledge of "Christianity teaching", b.) deductive reasoning/argument & practicality, & c.) common sense.
3b. A deductive argument is an argument that is presented as (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument"s premises are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument has true conclusions, then the argument is said to be sound.
3c. Example: It is hot & sunny outside. If it is hot & sunny outside then the sun is out. If you go outside & see the sun you will also feel the sun"s hotness. Therefore it is true the sun is out.
1. I'll use deductive reasoning through Observation A to show that only two Divine Gods exist, not three, & how the alleged third God, Holy Spirit/Ghost, is not a "deity", nor has "divine status, quality, or nature" like God aka Elohim aka "the Mighty Ones."
1a. I'll demonstrate through common knowledge of Christianity teaching that these two Supreme Beings are not one literal Being.
2. To avoid "annoying & confusing" those who believe Jehovah & Jesus are the same being, I will not use the name Jehovah to refer to the God Father but merely "Father" to establish individuality of the two, part from the Son.
3. There is one Father, as a Deity called God"Eloah"Mighty One. There is one Son, as a Deity called God"Eloah"Mighty One. There is the Holy Spirit of Father & Son"God"Elohim"Mighty Ones.
C. The Deductive Reasoning for the Father:
Father"a man in relation to his natural child or children. In the case of a Supreme Spiritual Entity, "a male deity in relation to his natural child." A father is also one who rules the house of a family. Christianity tells us God the Father rules the heavenly house known as the Kingdom of God or Heaven. It also makes clear that God the Son preached the Father ruled the house. Since the Son declares the Father"s autonomy, the Son isn't the Father nor is the Father the Son. If neither God is the same God, both Gods must be individual Beings. The Father of the House also makes the rules of the House, natural the children are taught to obey. What are the Father"s rules? Christianity tells us they are the 10 Commandments & that God the Son declared he didn't come to earth to destroy the Rules/Laws but to fulfill them. By deductive reasoning, if the Father establishes the rules for his children to obey, fulfilling these rules on a daily basis is akin to obeying them, right? Christianity tells us God the Son obeyed each one daily. Therefore the two Gods cannot be the same God, since one established the rules for the other to obey. Christianity, like Pro, states the Father has a throne & is seated on that throne. It also tells us the Father asked the Son to sit at his right side next to his throne. If there are three Gods as one God, why would one need to ask another to sit beside him & rule? More importantly, how come the alleged third God has no throne, nor was asked to sit with them? By deductive reasoning Christianity shows us a presence of "dialogue" between two about two thrones & an absence of "dialogue" toward a third party concerning no throne, nor an offer. If the presence of dialogue exist between the Elohim & Elohim is plural for Mighty Deities, then God is not one but two or three or four. Now if there is an absence of dialogue to the alleged third God, then isn't it more logical to deduct that the third is not a deity rather than is a supreme deity with no throne like the other two?
D. The Deductive Reasoning for the Son:
Son"a boy in relation to his natural father or parents. A son is usually one who carry on his father"s name, his father"s guidance, his father"s rules. Christianity tells us God the Son came to earth in the name of the Father. Therefore by that logic, two Personages must exist apart from each other as individual entities in order for one to step in front of an audience & declare the other.
One of the most famous Christian stories is God loving the world so much he gave us his ONLY begotten Son. If God is one entity as Father & Son, then the story is saying the Only Begotten Son gave the world his Only Begotten Son. So does that also mean the Father gave both a Son & Grandson to us? Who is the Grandson? God the Son has got to be a totally separate entity. Or else Christians, not Atheists & Muslims, are delusional, unable to distinguish individuals as separate from one another. Now the biggest piece of evidence that the Father & Son & Holy Spirit aren't "equal"""one" comes from the Son. Evidence of the Son"s declaration of his return to earth is documented everywhere"in books, magazines, movies, online videos, even posters. They, a plethora of evidence, tell us the Son declared empathetic, "No one knows the day or hour of my return, not even me, but only my Father." Wait, if these spiritual entities are the same, united in cause, eternally equal, joined as one then all three would know the return date.
Now let us common sense. The Son said "no one know but the Father"--this proves they aren't the same being because how in the hell can you hide from yourself your own glorified return to a place? But wait, check out this--only the Father knows. Well, how come the Holy Spirit doesn't know? According to Christian doctrine we see the Father & Son discussing many things. Seems like the Holy Spirit is kept out of the loop in many divine decisions. The return date of Christ demonstrates there is an imbalance power among the three, an authoritative hierarchy excluding the Holy Spirit, secrets, knowledge withholding, lack of information privileges to which the Son made it clear only the Father is privy to.
E. The Deductive Reasoning for the Holy Ghost:
Have you ever looked up the definition for "holy" & "spirit"? Holy is defined as "dedicated or consecrated to God". Based on this general definition the Holy Spirit is "dedicated or consecrated to" himself if he is God. The Hebrew word for "spirit" in the Bible is ruach & the Greek is pneuma, both words denote "breath" or "wind," in which both are invisible forces. Jewish scholars have never defined the Holy Spirit as anything except "the power of God". Take a long at the definitions again, deductive reasoning with common sense calculation: "power" or "breath" or "wind (as in a moving force)" "dedicated to God""the Father & the Son. The Holy Spirit is power"a moving force"belonging to the Mighty Ones, Father & Son.
Now if the Holy Spirit is a Personage like the Father or Son, what is his "family title"? Uncle? Aunt? Third Cousin? The very words & definitions of "father" & "son" unequivocally denote a "family affair" of individual entities. The Holy Spirit is never applied a family title. How come? Isn't he equal, as one, with the Father & Son? In fact, nowhere in the Bible, Rabbinical writings, Christian commentaries, or ancient texts do you ever read about the Holy Spirit ever saying a literal "word". He"allegedly he"never speaks! Is he a mute? Is this the reason there isn't any dialogue coming from the Father or Son to the Holy Spirit? Because the Holy Spirit isn't a Deity at all. It"not he"is simply the power of God. Have you ever seen a human-likeness drawing or painting of the Holy Spirit, like you see of the Father & Son? Logic doesn't tell us that the absence of something is evidence it doesn't exist. But rather the absence of the attributes of something is evidence it doesn't exist.
Here"s an example with deductive reasoning.
1a. The absence of a living or dead corpse of a Bigfoot isn't evidence that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Without the absence of living or dead Bigfoot as evidence, it is possible that the existence of Bigfoot exist.
1b. The absence of a Bigfoot feces, fossils, or DNA is evidence that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Since a record of it"s feces, bones, or DNA found in any area of the world would be the evidence that Bigfoot possibly existed or does existence.
1c. The absence of attributes associated with the Father & Son, such as dialogue, family titles, kingship references, acts of worship, etc. is evidence that the Holy Spirit isn't a Divine Entity, with a Personage, equal to two Beings with personal first names.
Here in my 1st argument I've established that God"Elohim"Mighty Ones are 2 separate individual beings widely known as the Father & the Son & that they are not part of a three person leadership sharing equality with the Holy Spirit. My 2nd argument will delve deeper in demonstrating point by point how the Holy Spirit does not have Divine Status, Divine Quality, & Divine Nature to allow "it" to be considered a Deity.
I hope Con can show some leniancy in this matter so that this round may be removed altogether from this debate.
I thank him in anticipation.
My opponent has agreed to there being a Godhead and a Son the only thing he doubts is the Holy Ghost.
Now here is why if there is Jehovah and Jesus there must be this Holy Spirit. You see, Jehovah is the pure God and Jesus is God in human flesh , at pole opposites, just as when there is a father and a son other entities may be accounted for. If there is a father and son it means there must be a mother, it means that there must be the fathers seed that entered the mother. The Holy Ghost is that seed. Also the Holy Ghost is not mute, he appeared to Mary did he not? He speaks to saints like Paul.
The Holy Spirit is the synthesis of God and Jesus so that he is indeed also God. Lastly the Holy Ghost also transcends time space and number, verily he is it, therefore since no other being except god can do this, the Holy Spirit is also god.
1. the only thing he doubts is the Holy Ghost.
"The Hebrew word for "spirit" in the Bible is ruach & the Greek is pneuma, both words denote "breath" or "wind," in which both are invisible forces." This comment establishes a pretext--that I affirm a belief in the concept of a "spirit."
"Jewish scholars have never defined the Holy Spirit as anything except "the power of God." Here I corner my affirmation of spirit/[Holy]Spirit into the definition of "the power" of God thus establishing the Holy Spirit is a real thing.
Con is wrong: "the only thing he doubts is the Holy Spirit."
2. there must be a mother
Who is the mother of Jesus? According to the Bible, a literal real woman was (Mary). "Now if the Holy Spirit is a Personage like the Father or Son, what is his "family title"? " The Holy Spirit is never applied a family title." The HS has to be a Personage like the Father & Son. Without this Personage, it cannot hold a family title, without a definable family title, equality between the 3 does not exist. This is why Christian believe purports humans will one day be greater than angels because we will hold a family title, thus establishing an equality with the God Family because we are personages created in His image, after His likeness.
3. The Holy Ghost is that seed.
a flowering plant's unit of reproduction, capable of developing into another such plant.
a person's offspring or descendants
a man's semen
a small crystal introduced into a liquid to act as a nucleus for crystallization
a small container for radioactive material placed in body tissue during radiotherapy.
any of a number of stronger competitors in a sports tournament who have been assigned a specified position in an ordered list with the aim of ensuring that they do not play each other in the early rounds.
Which one of these nouns (person, place, or thing) is the HS? Being the seed planted in Mary destroys the notion of the HS being an individual personage since the Christian belief is that Jesus was the seed, the individual personage, planted into her. According to Christian orthodoxy the Father used the HS to plant the Son into Mary"s womb. Either this scenario means a cuckolding orgy was going on with the Father watching the HS bump-n-grind Mary or the Father used his Holy Power (Spirit) to impregnate Mary with Christ.
4. Also the Holy Ghost is not mute,
refraining from speech or temporarily speechless.
a person without the power of speech
deaden, muffle, or soften the sound of.
The last definition is irrelevant since the allegation of the HS being a personage is under scrutiny, and I specifically address that angle with this rebuttal "Is he a mute?" This indicates the notion revolves around being capable of speech.
5. He appeared to Mary did he not?
No the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary. Rule 3 prevents me from giving a detailed analysis on Luke 1:35 by referencing scholarly sources that define certain words in the Greek, to demonstrate by these scholarly commentaries that this Biblical passage reveals the HS as pneuma aka "wind" as in an invisible force.
6. He speaks to saints like Paul.
This argument alludes to the Biblical verse Act 19:6. Since Pro has broken protocol of "No arguments may be based on the Bible" Rule 3 now becomes, in all fairness, voided. And to clarify for the judges, "the HS speaking to Paul" isn't commonly believed or supported in Christian circles so voiding of Rule 3 is not an act to circumvent it based on any other notion one might have for my doing so.
Proving the HS never spoke to Paul, Act 19:6
"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying "
"and Paul having laid on them his hands, the Holy Spirit came upon them, they were speaking also with tongues, and prophesying."
Young's Literal Translation.
Notice the HS never said a word esp. not to Paul. But what happened was the HS--God's POWER--allowed the people in the room the ability to speak in each one on native language and the other persons were able to understand them in their OWN language. That's divine power! An Asian man able to understand German even though he only understands Mandarin and natural doesn't know a single German word.
7. he Holy Spirit is the synthesis of God and Jesus so that he is indeed also God
Let's review my original God definition in reverse now to fully and logical understand why the HS can't be God based on the conception of what a God is and what the word is universally established to mean. In the Bible the Hebrew word translated God is "Elohim."
El/eloh/eloah means "mighty" an all-encompassing definition the Hebrews signified for their Personage Creator. "im" is the Hebrew plurality equivalent of English's "s" or "es". So "Elohim" means, under the Hebraic belief of a Personage Creator, more than one "mighty" Creator. There are only two deities in the Bible depicted to be Creators. The 1st Part of John 1:1 says "the Word was with God". Greek word here for God is "theon" and is set to the "accusative singular masculine", which literally translates grammatically as "the [Son] was with [a singular masculine] God". The 2nd Part of 1:1 says, "and the Word was God" The Greek word here is "theos" and is set to the "nominative singular masculine", which literally translates grammatically as "and the [Son] was [a singular masculine] God. Verified through Strong"s lexicon we get the picture is the Son was WITH a Fatherly Deity and was a Deity. We now understand why English translators attribute the word God (Greek"s theos) to Hebrew"s el/eloh/eloah. Because El meaning "mighty" as in God, can be pluralized as Elim meaning the same as Elohim aka Mighty Ones. Therefore with you break down John 1:1 the only two Personages you get are the Father and the Son. But my main point is this, John 1:2 repeats the accusative singular masculine "theos" and 1:3 states, "All things were made by Him; and without Him there wasn't anything made that was not made by Him." This "Him" is singled out are the literal Creator of all things. So where is the HS in these verses if it is an accusative or nominative singular Deity"a God as Pro claims? Remember we've long established God--Deity--is a Personage not pnuema--not wind as the HS is referred to.
8. Lastly the Holy Ghost also transcends time space and number, verily he is it, therefore since no other being except god can do this
Of course the HS transcends time, space, and number that doesn't make it a God. You know what else transcends time, space, and number--Love. Is love a God? The Bible says God is love.
To save space, I'll bypass my arguments using Divine Status, Quality, Nature to prove the HS isn't a God and move to an immediate summary.
In conclusion, The Holy Spirit is ruach and pnuema, like wind, an invisible force used by both Father and Son. The Holy Spirit is the instrumentality by which Father & Son uses to reveal things to us, to create life, to make things real, to heal, to feed, to shelter, to retrain, to liberate, to communicate, to bless, to punish, to sustain the universal and all its complexity.
"Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."
Why? You can blasphemy the Father & Son and be forgiveness. Why not the HS? Because if you literally see God move a mountain you are witnessing the power of God in action. It is the great piece of tangible evidence of spiritual truth--to literally see & feel the "power" of God in action. If you cannot believe that literal tangible piece of proof, then you won't believe anything God has to say. That denial is blasphemy. Denial of God's active power before your eyes is unforgivable to God.
The Holy Spirit isn't a God, it is the POWER of God.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro graciously acknowledged his mistake and courageously strove ahead to fulfill his obligation as instigator. While this is a mistake that will ultimately cost him the win, it is worth noting that he stood tall in what was the remainder of the debate. In terms of Arguments, Pro failed to uphold his BOP. This can be attributed to several things including the mistake in positioning, internet issues, and skipping a round. Ultimately though, Con presented a case in which, I believe, the Holy Spirit was presented as an extension of the Father's power. Pro presented a case where the HS was a separate thing altogether, acting as the synthesis between the Father and Son. What cost Pro the win was the lack of rebuttals towards Con's main arguments. Pro needed to show how the HS was the third in the trinity instead of just an extension of the Father and unfortunately failed to do so. Good job to both debaters though, as this was a well-fought battle and one that I would like to see again.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: This debate I would love to see again as I believe Pro did a very good job. Unfortunately to circumstances beyond their control (moving, Internet etc) I felt that the rebuttals were lacking. As such Con must win the debate for well though out arguments that went without rebuttals. I think Cons argument delved on the difference between material and immaterial concepts which would have been a great rebuttal. Anyway very nice debate, if you decide to do it again please let me know.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think Pro ever reaches his BoP. He provides some analysis as to why the Holy Spirit could exist, but not any arguments on why it must. Con's responses are well-taken, as each of them seeks to dismantle - a) that the HS is part of the trinity, b) that if it is, it's an equal trinity, and c) that the HS is an entity separate from the Father and the Son. I buy his analysis, as I don't get enough in the way of response from Pro. I understand that he set himself up on the wrong side of the debate and had issues posting in the final round that forced it to be short, but he makes too much unsubstantiated claims and, as Con points out, breaks one of his own rules. Altogether, Con takes this debate handily.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.