The existance of the holy trinity is probroly the truth.

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. RebuttalCon 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.