The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

the christian trinity is an illogical idea

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 941 times Debate No: 79224
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




consider: the son is God, the father is GOd, but the son is not the father and they are not separate Gods.

that's like saying

five plus one equals six. two plus four equals six. but five plus one does NOT equal two plus four.


Consider this:

God's physical form was as Jesus Christ "the son". His 'true form' was raw invisible power with none of the human 5 senses being able to detect or appreciate it so the power transformed into a human but had to do so by beginning as a baby and growing itself up to adulthood before people would listen so he uses his powers to alter Mary's egg and have a baby with her without needing sex because he's all powerful and can bypass it (he invented the need for sex after all).

When his human form dies, he has to come back to finalize the message and leave a true impact in the people's minds to understand his power was not fake or imagined but very supernatural and very real (the holy ghost form). These two forms of him are nothing compared to the third invisible untouchable form that is the 'father' form as the name suggest it is the alpha and superior form.

According to Pro, if a person has split personality disorder or the ability to change forms physically but not mentally both of these mean that the individual themselves cannot be constant whilst the variables are altered into their distinct forms.

This is very untrue.

Think of it like ice, vapor and liquid water. It's still H2O but there are distinct forms of it.

If you read this link: will see how the 'spirit' or 'core force' of god is singular but because it exists outside of reality and is not restrained by our dimensions and rules, it can take 3 forms with ease while maintaining itself as a constant amongst all 3.

I conclude that the trinity is logical as long as god itself is considered logical.
Debate Round No. 1


con says it can be understood with teh water anaology but hten has to resort to extra dimensions and such to explain it. we can't describe extra dimensions anyway because it is beyond us to graph.

in any rate, con's arguments have been tried and found heretical. modalism aka

con just says with his beginning remarks, hte split personality remarks, and the water remarks, that the 'person' is always the same, they just change form or modes. this runs afoul of the fact that each person has to be a distinct idenity. a betteranalogy would be that there is one constant of liquid but each substance is different, water, mercury etc. but this even fails cause they are not suppose to be constant of liquid, it's just changing modes.

if we looked at it like math.... five plus one is six, four plus two is six. the truth is they both equal six and thus equal each other, but the trinity is like saying five plus one does NOT equal four plus two. con is saying that because they are all six, but look different cause of different number combinations, that this makes it okay, an apt comparison. but it doesn't cause fou plus two is just a different mode than five plus one.... but they are both six and equal each other.


Pro has yet to offer a single point of substance to meet their own burden of proof. As for their rebuttals to me, they are nonsensical at best.

I explained that the same body can have varying personalities/identities while still being a constant amongst all 3. I also explained how altering the form of something doesn't mean that the essence of what that thing is has to change.

Neither has been countered by Pro and their Wikipedia link doesn't prove anything other than my very own case. Yes, that's right, their source supports my case.

I never said that 2 + 4 =/= 5 + 1 and Pro has yet to explain how this analogy is a valid display of what I am stating,

In actual fact it is Pro who is stating that since 2+4(holy ghost) is not the same in appearance as 5+1(Jesus) they cannot represent the same thing (6/god).
Debate Round No. 2


con doesn't understand that it's not just me, it's history that condemns his views. maybe con doesn't understand logic.

the three entities are distinct. that means they can't just be the same person in a differnt personality, or mode. they are distinctly different, yet they are the same according to christian theology. that is a blatantly on its face illogical statement.


Heard of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde[] or maybe Dissociative Identity Disorder?[]

I guess not.

Point is, things can alter form or parts of themselves while having the basic essence of what they are maintained as a constant between them.

Pro had full burden of proof and has yet to supply anything substantial in support of the resolution let alone to disprove my own case against it.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 3 years ago
And here capt. This a link which specifically contradicts your assertion.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 3 years ago
Captain Ahab, just because Masoretes copied the original, doesn't therefore mean they "copied" the correct meaning, Unless you can prove they weren't biased by what they "thought" a word means.
Posted by psyrus 3 years ago
Interesting. Learn somethin' new everyday.
Posted by CaptainAhab 3 years ago
@skipsaweirdo You are incorrect. Elohim is a masculine plural noun. It is not, and cannot be both singular and plural in Masoretic morphology. Furthermore the Hebrew bible as we have it is not written in "Ancient Hebrew." It is Masoretic, a copy of the originals made by the Masoretes between the sixth and tenth centuries AD.
Posted by debate-master1 3 years ago
Thanks for voting on my debate, Tough
Posted by Skepticalone 3 years ago
If no one votes within a few days, let me know and I will vote.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 3 years ago
Elohim is grammatically plural or sinVular in ancient Hebrew, so the comment as to it meaning only Gods is invalid. It also meant God.......So maybe that's why people don't a dress it.
Posted by CaptainAhab 3 years ago
I find it interesting that nobody mentioned the fact that the word God in the OT is elohim, which is plural and yet it is not translated as "gods" but God.

Also in regards to the "different substance" argument that is heretical as well. Jesus Christ is (homoousion) of one substance with the Father, but of a distinct person.

Im a little sad that nobody touched on the High Priestly Prayer:

20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them."

I wrote my college dissertation on the Trinity and its application to Christian worship by examining the concept of perichoresis. Anyone who is interested in this particular aspect of Christianity should read the words of the Post Nicene Fathers John of Damascus and Maximus the Confessor. Interesting debate, but I feel like both participants are arguing past each other.

For further reading and clarification of the Trinity, read the Athanasian Creed. It is repetitive, but instructional.
Posted by kjw47 3 years ago
To Hardrock hallelujah--- trinity translations are filled with error---- A large G God in the last line of John 1:1 is error---- a god is correct--meaning, has godlike qualities because Gods power went through Jesus( Acts 2:22) Its just as Jesus taught--he could do 0 on his own. ( John 5:30)--which also clearly teaches, it was the Father who sent Jesus, and at John 17:1-6,26--Jesus clearly teaches--The one who sent him = THE ONLY TRUE GOD-- verse 6= Jehovah, 26= Jehovah-- this is the true God=John 4:22-24--hallelujah translates--praise Jehovah.--Hallowed be thy( Father) name=Jehovah.
Posted by psyrus 3 years ago
You can't really deny the fact that the trinity is not in the bible. Of course there is evidence to support the idea of the trinity. Again, it's more of a learning tool then a cornerstone of faith (I think so anyway) so I don't care whether someone is Unitarian or Trinitarian. It's a silly thing that causes division between Christians. Nothing wrong with arguing the logic of it though.

So basically I think the truth is more of a Unitarian/Trinitarian hybrid. While the father, the son, and holy spirit are united, they are still divided (Mark 13:32). The father, the son, and the spirit make up all who God is.

So it's not:
father + son + spirit = Trinity it's

father + son + spirit = God

I find it useful to realize that general each side of the argument is wrong and right. It's part of being imperfect human's. We actually need each others perspective to grow in wisdom. You can learn so much when you can admit when you're wrong.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 3 years ago
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: Pro failed to prove basically anything. He supposed argues that it's an illogical idea, but failed to present any sort of proof.