trinity['s concept] exists in the bible

since we are allowed to forfeit, I guess my opponent will come with answers in next round.I am con this debate and in this round I have no burden from previous one, hence I am going to present some arguements of mine against Trinity, my opponent will reply to it.Christians are amazing, Bible does not contain any explicit mention of the doctrine of Trinity, though there are several fragments claimed to indirectly support it. EVEN THOUGH There are also several fragments that appear to explicitly deny it, STILL THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR THEM. (1)passages contradict trinity "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." mark13:32 NIV if father and spirit and son was ONE, then let us consider that Jesus broke his divinity and at that time Jesus was not one with spirit&father, now we conclude that: Father and spirit was one. if that two were one, then the spirit could have known due to oneness, but the verse says: ONLY FATHER KNOWS IT. this contradicts the oneness of spirit&father. {I am not including Jesus since we accepted him not god at that time.}JOhn17:3 reads:"“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" here, Jesus [himself] says that "father is the only true GOD." it contradicts the trinity due to according to trinity Spirit is also god, jesus says "ONLY"we may conclude that this words of Jesus is against the godness of the spirit [and also godness of him].(2)interpreting trinity with logic rationally[1]: (I hope this image will be available to see, if not available: http://rationalwiki.org...) The shield presents the following 12 statements simultaneously: "The Father is God" "The Son is God" "The Holy Spirit is God" "God is the Father" "God is the Son" "God is the Holy Spirit" "The Father is not the Son" "The Son is not the Father" "The Father is not the Holy Spirit" "The Holy Spirit is not the Father" "The Son is not the Holy Spirit" "The Holy Spirit is not the Son Since , the statements 1-6 can be restated as follows: God = Father God = Son God = Holy Spirit while the statements 7-12 can be restated as:Father ≠ SonFather ≠ Holy SpiritSon ≠ Holy Spirit Conventional logic says that equality is transitive: . Let's start from one of the "is not" relations. Father ≠ Son Now let's substitute the left side with the statement "God = Father": God ≠ Son and then substitute the right side with "God = Son": God ≠ God Further application of transitivity leads to the following statements: Son ≠ Son Father ≠ Father Holy Spirit ≠ Holy Spirit We conclude that God is not God, and so the doctrine of the Trinity implies that God as well as all three persons of the Trinity violate the law of identity. One of the fundamental assumptions of conventional logic is that objects that violate the law of identity do not exist: there is no entity that is not itself. This means several things: If Trinity is true, then God does not exist, and neither do any of his three persons. If God exists, then by the law of noncontradiction Trinity is a false doctrine. If God exists and Trinity is true, it can mean two things: Logic is meaningless, because it is possible to prove anything, including the existence and the non-existence of God. Trinity means something else than its Christian definition. in round one, my opponent brought things which he interpreted and used them as if they support trinity, after that I wanted to present this arguement against him, in first round with his arguement#2 he did it, as he did I also used this as an arguement. even if he brings up [which he didnt in two rounds] verses from the bible which completes the challenge of: verses/reference from the bible that: talks about the godness of the father. talks about the godness of the son. talks about the godness of the hole spirit. then this analys of rational wiki destroys it. (3) video I want to recommend to watch:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...*these are not arguement and has no relation with the topic, I just offered it, opponent does not need to refute this according to the debate purpose.I think these are enough. source: [1] http://rationalwiki.org...