Just wanted to add. The debate about this springs, in part from the Nicene Creed. The use of Greek philosophy was being used to clarify scriptural understanding. The debate was around the question of - what is the essence of god?
They were considering the Greek words ousia - substance and homoousios - essence, neither of which appear in the bible, to explain the relationship between the father and the son.
To me (not an expert), this seems a lot like they were trying to use the 'science' of the time to answer a doctrinal question. The 'science' they were using was flawed from the start and that probably goes a long to explaining why the subject is still divisive after almost 2000 years.
It didnt make sense then and still doesnt make sense.
Whether you believe one or the other is personal choice. There is no objective evidence - there is only faith, which requires no proof.