Is the trinity pagan?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
This will be a Devil's Advocate debate for me.
Influences on the Trinity
Father = God
Jesus ≠ Father
∴God ≠ God
[2] “Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” [Online]. Available: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#Up325CE. [Accessed: 15-Nov-2019].
[3] “How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY.” [Online]. Available: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989303. [Accessed: 15-Nov-2019].
[4] “Greek Philosophy’s Influence on the Trinity Doctrine | United Church of God.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/greek-philosophys-influence-on-the-trinity-doctrine. [Accessed: 15-Nov-2019].
Introduction
- The development of the doctrine was influenced by Pagan Roman Emperors
- The doctrine draws heavily from Platonic Greek philosophy
- The Trinity doctrine developed over time, and there was no consensus within the early Church
[2] “Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” [Online]. Available: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#Up325CE. [Accessed: 15-Nov-2019].
[3] “Greek Philosophy’s Influence on the Trinity Doctrine | United Church of God.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/greek-philosophys-influence-on-the-trinity-doctrine. [Accessed: 15-Nov-2019].
[4] “How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY.” [Online]. Available: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989303. [Accessed: 15-Nov-2019].
This largely boils down to a BoP failure, and almost no contest. As the instigator, con should be providing enough reason to doubt the validity of the resolution (unless specified otherwise in the description); instead he merely makes two assertions (each literally a single sentence). He also completely dismissed his EoF when making a counter claim.
Pro literally schooled con. He dismantled con's case (at far greater lengths than it existed), he built his own showing the historical connections to pagan cultures (I am somewhat amused that con complained that pro provided a link, rather than trying to refute any aspect of it). And he even walked con through what he would need to do to support his claims and win the debate (but con was uninterested).
Con's assertion "that trinity doctrine is beyond our comprehension" basically amounted to an accidental concession, as he needs to prove something about it, thus comprehend it (not even getting into the problems of that 8th century anti-educational viewpoint).
Sources:
Pro had an overwhelming advantage here from bothering to research their case, and then line up the sources with the arguments via numbering them. The one that takes to cake for me was con's LogicallyFallacious source, which he leveraged against his own final round (/guilt by association is a fallacy!/ ... "Also, I notice you're citing a Jw.org link, which is telling on where you're getting these ideas from").
Conduct:
Con's refusal to engage with the debate was a problematic to say the least; however this is already well punished under other areas, and he did not get nasty. ... This still leans heavily in pro's favor, such that I am on the fence about giving the point or not.
Con dropped most of Pro's R1 arguments. He failed to show how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. In fact, he hardly presented any arguments. On the other hand, Pro actually took the time to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity was pagan. He showed how pagan emperors influenced the Nicean Council. He argued that the pagan Platonic philosophy was added to the Trinity and that the doctrine developed over time rather than being the beliefs of the earliest Christians. He refuted Con's argument that the Trinity is Biblical by providing a verse hinting at the opposite. I don't think he proved that the Trinity was pagan, Con failed to establish the BoP required. Pro's arguments suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity could have pagan roots. Con failed to refute those arguments. Consequently, arguments go to Pro.
There were no issues with spelling, grammar, or conduct. While Con did try to discredit one of Pro's sources, he didn't provide any reasoning for discrediting it. Thus, sources are a tie.
CON made one argument in R1- the trinity didn't come from CoNicea. OK. nobody said it did and non-sequitur to question of pagan origins. Truly terrible, lazy argument.
PRO took the high road and offered some Platonic, Roman, and Egyptian origins, correctly pointed out that some early Christian support for trinity does argue against pagan sources and points out that Nicea was, in fact, a milepost on the road to Trinitarian acceptance. Nice work.
CON comes back with unsupported declaration and bizarrely insisting that his topic lies beyond our capacity to understand- which suggests that CON has no hope of proving his argument since he admits to not understanding the subject.
ARGUMENTS to PRO
SOURCES to PRO. CON offered no sources in support of claim. Worse, PRO fronts one specific religious source and condemns CON's use of a specific religious source (one assumes because it is the wrong kind of religious source), ignoring that PRO, at least, pulled from multiple religious and secular sources.
CONDUCT to PRO.
CON set up 5 rules for the debate and then broke 3 of them in his tiny arguments.
1. Don't uses logical fallacy.
"There is no evidence that the trinity is pagan." =arg from ignorance
" it didn't came from the Council of Nicea" =straw man
"the trinity can be found in the Bible" =appeal to authority, false authority
God that is outside our space and time, comprehension = arg from incredultiy
arguing that the number 3 ... is an association fallacy =fallacy fallacy
I notice you're citing a Jw.org link =appeal to authority
3. Give your opponent evidence.
CON gave zero evidence relevant to topic.
4. Don't mock or call someone names.
CON's source called Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and then CON irrationally inferred PRO's participation in that org because CON cited a JW website.
CON's conduct was thoroughly hypocritical and anti-engagement.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague. This can be avoided in future by just naming the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
**************************************************
DynamicSquid
4 days ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Hmm... it pains to see the contrast between a lenghy text and a short text. I feel like this is time wasted.
Therefor, I shall judge this debate based on quantity.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague. This can be avoided in future by just naming the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
**************************************************
PressF4Respect
2 days ago
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Con provided ample evidence for his arguments, and soundly rebutted the only claim that Pro presented.
Many sources vs one source, it’s self-evident who wins here.
The reason why the father knows that day, is because Jesus was both fully God and fully man, and have to willingly cooperate the limitations of being man. Also, I heard that Eusebius and Justin Martyr have argued that Plato was influenced under the teaching of Moses. So, meaning that the connection could be the other way around.
"Pro literally schooled con."
Wishful thinking are there, kid.
I agree that the Bible supports the Trinity, but I think it's untrue that it's explicitly found in there. Matthew 18:19 lists the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but it does not explain the relationship between each person. Arianists, subordinationists, and others also believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; it's just that they would understand the relationships differently. To prove the Trinity from that verse, you would have to use other verses to make inferences and deductions, meaning that it's not explicit but rather implicit.
Jesus ordered his disciples to baptize people "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). Jesus understood "the Father" to be God the Father (generally thought to be synonymous with YHWH of the Old Testament), Himself being "the Son", and the Holy Spirit is described in the Bible as He who came to believers after the end of Jesus's earthly ministry. Besides "The Word" (generally understood to be either an alternate name for The Son or for Scripture, which was divinely inspired by God), God is only understood in these three terms in the Christian canon, thus comprising a Trinity. This doesn't answer the question of whether the idea of the Trinity is pagan, but Pro's claim that the Trinity "is not explicitly found in the Bible" is false.
Thanks for letting me know.
What you just wrote was sufficient.
It was weird cause we had just been talking on another thread in the forums. OK. Thanks for the heads up.
I don't know what you mean. I saw your comment as I was reading the debate so I could vote on it.
Would my RFD be sufficient if I added some evaluation of Pro's arguments?
"Con dropped most of Pro's R1 arguments. He failed to show how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. In fact, he hardly presented any arguments. On the other hand, Pro actually took the time to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity was pagan. He showed how pagan emperors influenced the Nicean Council. He argued that the pagan Platonic philosophy was added to the Trinity and that the doctrine developed over time rather than being the beliefs of the earliest Christians. He refuted Con's argument that the Trinity is Biblical by providing a verse hinting at the opposite. I don't think he proved that the Trinity was pagan, Con failed to establish the BoP required. Pro's arguments suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity could have pagan roots. Con failed to refute those arguments. Consequently, arguments go to Pro.
There were no issues with spelling, grammar, or conduct. While Con did try to discredit one of Pro's sources, he didn't provide any reasoning for discrediting it. Thus, sources are a tie."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
"Con dropped most of Pro's R1 arguments. He failed to show how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. In fact, he hardly presented any arguments. On the other hand, Pro actually took the time to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity was pagan. While I don't think he proved that the Trinity was pagan, Con failed to establish the BoP required. Pro's arguments suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity could have pagan roots. Con failed to refute those arguments. Consequently, arguments go to Pro.
There were no issues with spelling, grammar, or conduct. While Con did try to discredit one of Pro's sources, he didn't provide any reasoning for discrediting it. Thus, sources are a tie."
>Reason for Mod Action: To award points for arguments, the voter must survey the main arguments of the round, weigh them, and come to a conclusion based off the gravity of the arguments per the CoC and Voting Guidelines. There was a surface-level attempt to do this, and I do agree from my cursory evaluation that Con essentially drops this debate, but Pro's arguments and counterarguments must be evaluated as well. Sorry, my hands are tied.
************************************************************************
>"the trinity can be found in the Bible" =appeal to authority, false authority
You were on point except for this one. For this argument, the bible was an acceptable authority, and the concept of the trinity being found in the bible would be consistent with con's position that the trinity was not pagan. Requiring con not to appeal to the bible was illogical. He just needed to correctly do so, and show it in his argumentation.
Interesting arguments to support the conduct point.
I know. But was it just chance that you were around to answer?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: JesusChrist4Ever // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro used a biased source by using the Watchtower Organization, which is part of the Jehovah's Witness Cult. Plus Con had a much better argument by saying that it was beyond human comprehension.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligible per the Voting Guidelines. He/she must have completed 2 non-forfeit debates or have 100 forum posts. In addition, the point justifications are insubstantial. To award the points for arguments, the voter must: "
1. Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
2. Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
3. Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points."
To award points for sources, the voter must:
"1.Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
2.Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
3.Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's"
I would recommend skimming the CoC and Voting Guidelines which can be located at the bottom of the page or at this URL:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Because it didn't require one of them to answer.
Thanks. How come you responded instead one of the debaters?
It goes by the number of arguments rather than the number of rounds, so it will always say there are twice as many arguments as there are rounds. Of course, you probably figured that part out already.
OK. The "arguments" tab said 4.
There are only two rounds total.
Why is voting on with only two rounds complete?