Summations Only

Duly noted.

The Trinity is explained in this verse... Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."The Trinity or Godhead is what things are made of.That's what the verse says, and that what I believe.What are things made of that consist of three components?Atoms. Simple.Not sure why this is even a debate.

In order to believe in the nature of Trinity, you must first believe that there is a single God. Do you believe that? Let's make it easier, are you willing to accept the assumption that there is a God? This is serious. Once you accept the assumption, then you can not negate it in any of your later argument.Are you willing to accept the assumption that there is ONE God, and ONLY ONE God? Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

This brings up a good point. For many people there seems to be no reason to believe in what they would conclude to be un-evidenced fantasies and tales of mythos.The only thing that stumps me there is the claim that they used to believe and now don't. This seems to only be possible if one values objective evidence and rationality over their belief. I would maintain that there is not a lot of objective evidence either way...and that it is far from conclusive. Lets just say that I do not take them tentatively or casually as if I were judging my thought process and belief paradigm with the scientific method. When I initially got saved, it was no small matter. Ahhhh a newcomer. Welcome to EvC. If I may, allow me to brief you.You seem puzzled why this is a "debate". Might I ask you what else it could possibly be? The art of discussion and debate is an old and honorable one. May I ask you why you joined? Don't you want to be challenged? Also...it is my understanding that for the Trinity to be what things are made of rather than a vehicle through which they are made implies Pantheism over Trinitarian Monotheistic Creationism. Does that make sense? I do. ringo likely believes that there is no "evidence" of any gods. He believes in human potential as the only thing that really matters and that we can test and measure.

In order to argue about anything related to God, one first NEEDS to assume that there is a God. Otherwise, where is the base for any follow-up argument?

Based on that premise, no atheist/agnostic or adherent of any other religion can argue in any way about God. Assuming that you and I knew that God is One and that He is Trinitarian Monotheistic, we would still be challenged to argue anything apart from what we intuitively believed. I happen to believe that Everyone on the planet knows *about* God. They know the version that a majority of we Christians believe is real. Why are they disqualified from asking questions? Sarah Bellum and I are just getting warmed up. But lets focus on you and I. Do you know what God would say were it He and I?Discuss.

Well DUH.Evidence and reality ALWAYS trump belief. Always, always, always. That's where your problem is. I don't believe that there is any more evidence for YOUR god than there is for any other god. YOU believe there is no evidence for the other gods. You just need to catch up by one god. WRONG - as i have told you many times. Do you read my posts at all?I believe that human potential is all we have. Even if it's only a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10, it's all we have. Christians are living proof of that.

Obviously not. We can argue about Frodo without assuming that Frodo exists.

Your premise is false. It is certainly possible to discuss the nature odf a fictional entity, such as Frodo.

That is true. But in this Trinity issue, the question is NOT if God exists, but is "Is God one or three"?.Do you see God is already assumed to exist in the question? If you say: God does not exist. Then you can leave this thread alone.If you want to explore the Trinity, then you MUST assume at least one God exists. Can you see what you have to deal with in this issue is a logic question, not a theological question?You assume God exists, then we can talk about Trinity.

Sorry, I did not read early postings. I do not understand the question.

Basically I am asking if you as a believer can speak on behalf of God. Critics despise apologists because they claim that apologists make up random stuff and in essence claim to speak on Gods behalf. Philosophically I see no reason why you can't. Scientifically is another issue, however. Science is science and is based on testable logic. Even if God could change the rules of logic, it does not appear that He does so.

Or a talking snake. But the apologists all agreed that the snake lied because the snake is equivalent to Satan who is the Father of lies. To assert that the snake tells the truth throws a whole plot twist into the definition of the character. None of us wrote the book, but I suppose we have the freedom to our own interpretations of the book. One problem, however, is if God Himself is a fictional entity there is no absolute truth nor is any Deity any holier than any other. Relativism is a plot of Satan. You cant have a heaven full of independent thinkers when it comes to who is in charge or who is truth personified.

That's because you have no idea what philosophy is.
In you're world it seems to be just making shit up because you like the sound of it.

What color is the sky in YOUR world? So what do you do if God is reality and yet is by nature UN evidenced to some? You make it seem as if gods are a dime a dozen. I am talking about the Creator of all seen and unseen. The reality that is without objective evidence. Do you have a plausible substitute for such a position? I suppose we could personify the universe. Or glibly claim that "In The Beginning...chemicals" makes anywhere near as much sense. But lets not.Instead of challenging everything with a counterpoint, perhaps you could explain why the points I make are PRATTs.
Point 1: There is One God, Creator of all seen and unseen. Apart from whining about no evidence, do you have any other reason to prefer chemicals as the beginning of everything we know? And where did they come from?