EA. D.'s opening statement against the trinity

	Hello everyone and thank you for joining us today to debate a highly contested subject both inside and outside the christian faith, Is God a Trinity? I have alot to say on the topic so lets get right into it.  My opponent is a christian Trinitarian that believes God is 3 persons in 1 being. I will attempt to demonstrate today that just saying that broad phrase is not flushing out the logical problems that entail using this phrase. I will be presenting 3 logical arguments in this opening statement that will show the logical inconsistencies of the trinity. If Jrob wants to show how the trinity is possible, he will necessarily have to resolve these issues I bring up. to add to that if he responds to any of these problems with its a mystery, I will reject that as a solution to the problem. If he simply states 3 persons in 1 being as the conclusion, I will reject that. And also if he states I have a misunderstanding due to not being filled with the holy spirit, I will consider that a cop out. If he does truly understand the trinity and is here today arguing for it, I am going to demand a high level resolution to these logical problems. I will be granting Jrob whatever he thinks scripture is saying and then asking him to resolve the logical problems that come out of that scriptural understanding. So spending the debate quoting scripture will do no good. These issues are of a philisophical nature and need a philisophical solution.

	The first argument I would like to bring up is what many christian philosophers and theologians call the LPT, or The Logical Problem of the Trinity. It is quite easy to point out, but flushing out all of the inconsistencies that follow is where the problem lies.  All trinitarians agree with the following 7 statements; the father is God, the son is God, the holy spirit is God, The Father is not the son, The father is not the holy spirit, the son is not the holy spirit, there is exactly one God. So far so good.  but when the is God statement is mentioned with the persons, what does that mean? Is he stating that the father is numerically identical to God, or is it a statement of predication, attributing aspects of one to the other. If he says it is a statement of identity for both the father and the son, he would be directly violating the classical laws of logic. If the father and the son are both identical to God, it would follow logically that they are identical to each other.  But Jrob rejects that the father is the son. It seems to back him into a corner of accepting that his God is contradictory or he must abandon numerical identity with the is god statements. If he says it is a predication and there are 3 seperate entities that share certain qualities, I would ask him to show how he can maintain monotheism with 3 seperate entities that are all considered God. He would fall into tri theism or polytheism. Lets see if Jrob has a sufficient resolution to the LPT.

	The second Logical problem I would like to bring up is Aseity, which is defined as follows: the quality or state of being self-derived or self-originated.  specifically : the absolute self-sufficiency, independence, and autonomy of God. According the the Nicean Creed it is stated that scripture argues that the Father is uncaused while the son is eternally begotten or Eternally caused by the father and the holy spirit spirates from the father through the son. Jrob is free to throw his Church Fathers under the bus if he would like, but just the other night he was explaining to me how important the early scholars of our faiths were when it comes to scripture and definitions. So if he is consistent I think he would appreciate what the scholars have to say that existed just over 300 years after Isa (as) was allegedly crucified. So if the Father is the only person that is uncaused, yet he is only one out of 3 persons in the trinity, it would seem to follow that 2 out of the 3 persons are not asei. which completely goes against the universally agreed upon definition for aseity. If the son and holy spirit are dependant on the father for their existence, they are not asei, and the necessary being must necessarily be asei. Lets see if Jrob has a solution to this problem without dismissing early christian experts.

	The Third argument I would like to present is a logical issue with the trinity putting arbitrary limitations on god. Ill explain how. In philosophy a necessary being is one who is unconditionally non dependant, and also one who could not fail to exist in another possible reality. God must exist exactly the same in all possible worlds. So heres the question. since we know that Jrob would agree that it is at least logically possible if not logically necessary that God can be a multiplicity of persons, than is it possible for God to be 5 persons in another possible world, how about 358 persons in 1 being, all sharing the divine essence yet having different functions.  If he agrees it is possible that God could be a different amount of persons in another reality, than he has just explained a contingent being and I would ask what is it that God is dependant on.  If Jrob states that it is impossible for God to be none other that 3 persons, I would ask what the logical contradiction would be for him to present himself in another possible world as a different number of persons.  God would then be arbitrarily limited by a maximum of 3 persons and by definition becomes a contingent being. This argument here is the nail in the coffin for the trinitarian view. I would be very interested in hearing Jrobs DIRECT responses engaging with these arguments.

	So now that we have presented some arguments, lets put the cherry ontop with some quotes from christian scholars on the different models of the Trinity.  Here is one from Brian leftow:
	“Let us consider paganism further. For Christian orthodoxy, the
Father ‘begets’ the Son and ‘breathes’ the Spirit. So on the
functional-monotheist account, the reason the Persons are one God
and the Olympians are not is that the Persons are far more alike than
Zeus and his brood, far more cooperative, and linked by procession.
But it is hardly plausible that Greek paganism would have been a
form of monotheism had Zeus & Co. been more alike, better
behaved, and linked by the right causal relations.”-Anti—Social
Trinitarianism

“A Trinity doctrine is commonly expressed as the statement that the one God
exists as or in three equally divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. Every term in this statement (God, exists, as or in, equally divine, Person)
has been variously understood. The guiding principle has been the creedal
declaration that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the New Testament are
consubstantial (i.e. the same in substance or essence, Greek: homoousios).
Because this shared substance or essence is a divine one, this is understood to
imply that all three named individuals are divine, and equally so. Yet the three in
some sense “are” the one God of the Bible.” Dale Tuggy, SEP Trinity Entry

	Here is a quote from the Nicene Creed:
	“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of
the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousion) with the
Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was
Incarnate…

So in conclusion I would be curious to know what model of Trinitarianism Jrob holds to ie. social, latin, monarchial, or relative Identity Trinitarianism. When that is put on the table I would be able to bring out even more issues with his view on the Trinity within the specific schools of thought. Many of these views can entail inconsistencies when we attempt to align this view with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Also I would be interested which of the 7 theories of Atonement he holds to and do a mirror image back on his view on the trinity. Problems on Problems will arise the further we open the bag on Jrobs belief system and we will end up with more questions and inconsistencies than answers. If you dont believe me, just stick around for the rest of the debate, inshallah.

If Jrob is to show the Possibility of the Trinity he must resolve each of these problems while simultaneously not contradicting his own scripture and he must not have issues that spill over to the Incarnation and atonement theory he holds to. Inshallah we will have some answers by the end of the debate, Thank you