The Instigator
Romans1.20
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Why dont they believe in the trinity and its in torah. Trinity is real

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 666 times Debate No: 27977
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Romans1.20

Pro

Genesis1- God is talking about time, space, and matter. In the beginning=(time) God created heaven=(space) andthe earth=(matter).Whatis Time-pass, present, future. Whatis Space-width,depth,height.Whatis Earth/Matter-solid,liquid,gas What are you a human- body,soul,spirit.Or mind,body,soul. See the understandingoftrinity is allaroundus.ReadRoman1:20(inmyown word Romans 1:20 says that God say if you can't understand the trinity look at what I made.) Atom-protons,neutrons,electrons.Tree-root,trunk,leaves.Music-melody,harmony,rhythm.The understanding is all around us
wiploc

Con


Pro resolves that it is true that the Christian god is a Trinity. He further resolves that all we have to do to understand the Trinity is look around at things with three parts. He further purports to offer illuminating examples of things with three parts.


I, on the other hand, think that:


1. The trinity is not truth apt; it is neither true nor false because it doesn't have a meaning.


2. In the alternative, if the trinity has meaning, then the trinity is false; it does not really exist.


3. Pro's examples of things purported to have three parts are silly and unpersuasive. They are evidence only that Pro is a "motivated believer," ready to grasp at any justification for belief, no matter how flimsy.



1. The Trinity is Not Truth Apt.


- A Possible History of the Trinity:


My understanding is that the Jews had one god only, and that Christianity grew out of Judaism. Therefore, the Christians need to have just one god too. So it was an embarrassment that they added Jesus to their pantheon, giving them two gods. So they had to say that two gods were one god.


Then (or before) they took to acting like Jehovah was Voldemort, he who must not be named. So they tiptoed around his name, using euphemisms. Instead of saying "Jehovah," they'd say things like "Highest" or "Holy One" or, more to the point "the Holy Spirit." The one that won out in the long run was "Holy Ghost."


But, then, see, they quit talking like that. They started talking about Jehovah by name again, and why not? But that confused them when they read the old references to the Holy Ghost. Who is the Holy Ghost? They thought he was another god, a third one. But all three gods have to somehow count as only one, because otherwise Jewish monotheism is false. And if Judaism is false, then Christianity is false too. So, the Christians have three gods, but they have to somehow be construed as only one.


I believe that this is the reason for Trinitarian doctrine.


- How does Trinitarian doctrine work? What is it that we are supposed to believe?


This has no answer. It doesn't mean anything. A friend of mine trained to be a Jesuit, and he said that no human can conceive of or understand the trinity. That is, Trinitarian doctrine is nonsense and contradiction.


I watched five experts, Christians all, discuss the Trinity on TV. They all had different rationalizations of the meaning of "Trinity." None of them accepted the explanations of the others. But they all said that we should accept Trinitarianism as true.


How can it be true if it doesn't have an agreed meaning? It can't. Unless the person hearing the word has the same understanding of it as the person speaking the word, no meaning is conveyed.


Where there is no meaning, there can be no truth.


Is xlrgrupstupfl true? No, it has no meaning, so it is neither true nor false.


Is the Trinity true? No, it has no meaning, so it is neither true nor false.


Pro thinks he's rationalized a new meaning for the word, one perhaps unique to himself. He offers no explanation for why the Church hasn't discovered and shared and agreed on this meaning over the centuries. Nor does his explanation (trees have three parts) solve the mystery of the Trinity. The father is the son; does that mean that the roots are the branches?


Would there be a mystery of the Trinity if the explanation were that simple? Of course not. So that is clearly not the explanation. Pro has not discovered the actual meaning of the word "Trinity." There is no actual meaning, since everybody rationalizes the contradiction differently.



2. The Trinity is False.


- Contradiction:


In plain language, if there is only one god, then there aren't three. If Trinitarian doctrine means something, then whatever it means is false.


- Implausibility:


Because the Trinity is a description of the Christian god, it follows that Trinity can't be true unless the Christian god is true. But there's no reason to believe in the Christian god. Not only is the Christian god shot thru with contradictions (omnipotent but unable to conquer iron chariots, just but merciful, totally good but the author of Hellfire, unchanging but repentant, able to be seen but unable to be seen, etc.) but even his non-contradictory aspects are implausible. If I said I was omnipotent, you wouldn't believe me, so when Pro says his friend is omnipotent, you shouldn't believe him either. The Christian god is supposed to be eternal, and to exist (at least sometimes) without a body, and to be able to create whole universes, and so on. Outrageous claims. Inherently implausible. Presumptively false.


But, if they are false, if the Christian god doesn't exist, then the Trinity is not true.


And even if the Christian god did exist, that wouldn't make him a Trinity. The Jewish, Mormon, and Islamic versions of the same god are not Trinitarian. Their cases for their non-Trinitarian versions of this god are just as good as the Christian case for the Trinitarian version.



3. Pro's Examples Are Silly and Inapt.


Pro tries to come across as somehow profound when he says that trees comprise three parts: roots, trunk, and branches. But he left out the leaves, the twigs, the stems, the blossoms, the seeds and nuts, the suckers, the bark. Trees don't really comprise three parts. Pro just picked three of the parts because he likes the number three. Because he was trying to prove some weird, as yet explained, thing about the Trinity.


Space has energy. Space without energy wouldn't have dimension. Yes, you can use Descartes' three dimensions to describe space, but that's not all there is too it. Pro arbitrarily selected three aspects of space because he was trying to make some obscure point about Jesus. But what exactly is that point? Pro doesn't say.


Pro claims humans are body, soul, and spirit, but soul and spirit are the same thing. Two words with one meaning. So, even according to Pro, people have only two parts. One could as easily say we are four parts, bone, brain, skin, and meat. Or eleven parts (toes and the rest). But how does any of this explain the Trinity? It doesn't I'd call Pro's examples self serving, if they seemed useful at all.


Pro says atoms are made of electrons, neutrons, and protons. That's not really true either. He didn't mention the forces that hold the nucleus together. No quarks for Pro, because they throw his count off. And what are we to learn from this example? That if something held Jesus and Jehovah together really tightly, the Holy Ghost would orbit around them? No, this example, like the others, is neither true nor useful.



Conclusion:


Pro has the burden of proof. He has undertaken to prove that Trinitarian doctrine is true, and that it is obviously true. He has made no move in that direction. He has failed to meet the burden of proof.


Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 1
Romans1.20

Pro

Romans1.20 forfeited this round.
wiploc

Con

Extend my arguments.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Romans1.20

Pro

Romans1.20 forfeited this round.
wiploc

Con

Pro has forfeited.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
Romans1.20wiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Romans1.20wiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF