Water analogy for the Trinity revisited.
Hello Christians, while the water analogy is typically denounced as a textbook example the Modalism heresy, I would like your input for the following addendum:
Refer to the [shield of the Trinity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity#/media/File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-earliest-and-latest-major-variants.svg)
Now replace them with the analogies of water.
God = H₂O
Son = Ice
Father = Water
Holy Spirit = Steam
Does the shield now holds true with regards to the relation of the 3 states of water from the substance?
Between ice, water and steam, how many substance do you have?
*Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son; and after Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time--only one after another.*
Ice can exist in the presence of its other states. All you need to do is to look that ice that exist in the poles of the Earth while water covers 70% of the Earth. How is this different from the Son existing here on Earth and God existing in heaven?
So does this defence of the water analogy rescue it from heresies? (Assuming you do see Modalism, Partialism, Tritheism etc. as heresies.)
For [context/disclosure](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/ecqeb3/the_christian_teaching_of_the_trinity_is/fdi3fvw/), I am currently bickering with a gnostic theist who accepts all religion. Since neither of us are Christian, he challenged me to gather some direct responses from you guys.
EDIT: While I appreciate you guys taking the time in responding to something that came about from two guys bickering, explaining the Trinity in detail doesn't really help settle that debate. What I am really interested in is how you feel about the analogy specified here. Is it a great analogy, close enough or seriously flawed?