The Incoherent Attribute Argument is Sound

RebuttalI will provide a response to my opponent's arguments. Omipotent v. OmniscientMy opponent still sees these two as incoherent, but I better understand his argument now. However, in my opponent's analogy, he sees time, and thus the future, outside the subject's control, which is not in the case of God. Because you know something to happen in the future does not mean you are not in control of its happening. God creates the entire timeline of events, and executes it accordingly. Your analogy is completely erroneous, because you write it from a human perspective -- " if I did change X, then I really did not know that X was going to happen with a 100% certainty. " An omniscient God CAN know what would happen in ANY course of events, and he may create in a specific way with full knowledge of the end result of any course of events. An omniscient God knows all of this, and an omnipotent God can choose whatever way he wishes to create the future. Immutable v. Omnibenevolent"When we contemplate what love is" from a human perspective, perhaps premise 4 -- "it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving" -- may be forced. But an omniscient God is not affected by earthly events, because he already knows what is to happen. However, he is omnibenevolent in that he loves his creation. His immutability is not in his being affected, it is in his attributes, once again. His omnibenevolence does not change. My opponent's syllogism fails to take into account the other attributes. He states that if God exists, he must be transcendent. However, my opponent seems to mistake the anthropomorphic representation of God seen in religious paintings as actual representations of a God. God is not necessarily a person anymore than the personified rabbit from Alice and Wonderland. He speaks, meddles with human events, and other human capabilities in the Bible, but that does not necessarily mean he is a person. However, I will ignore the error in statement 2 and assume my opponent means any entity that can perform actions within the Universe as we know it. My response is simple: an omnipotent God is not limited by his creation, that is, space and time -- he can operate both in and out of his creation just as the programmer of a virtual world can operate in and out of his program. I will finish by saying this syllogism does not actually refute my response to immutability v. omnibenevolence, but rather diverges into an argument about God's personhood. Just v. MercifulThere are several ways to define both justice and mercy (ignoring for a second that once again an omnipotent God exists outside what we consider contradictions). Mercy may not mean giving the criminal less punishment than he deserves, but merely showing compassion to the victim, etc. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) A "lenient" punishment may be one way to consider mercy, but other ways, including showing compassion, is another way. A just God may deal a punishment to a criminal (because he defines morality, and thus justice) but also be merciful in that punishment, not only relative to humans in considering the "lenient" definition, but also in showing compassion for the victim. ArgumentsI will now respond to my opponent's rebuttals of my arguments. Incoherency existsThe Beryllium ion has several possible quantum states that can collapse the wavefunction. However, all of these states exist simultaneously before the wavefunction is collapsed by an observer. The superposition of all of these states before the collapse is contradictory in what we consider logic. A particle might be is in one state, but in another at the same time. I am not even arguing that decoherence and incoherence are the same concept. All of these states in superposition are contradictory -- the particle is everywhere but nowhere -- before the wavefunction is collapsed by a measurement by an observer and the particle is forced to choose only one state, and then its position can be defined. Earthly definitionsIn Round 1, you did define God as ineffable, you merely used a Catholic Almanac as your source for this defintion. In saying "God will be defined as," and then listing 23 adjectives, you defined God in this argument. You could have picked any number of adjectives (or, any number of definitions as well) and defined this as God for the argument. You may have used a theological source, but you still repeated the defintion. You then say, "how is it that we possibly know what God is? " We use the closest words we have to describe God, and even then, in our inherent human nature, we have altered and added definitions to each of these words. They are a human creation. OmnipotenceI do not pretend to know why a God would create us to be logical. I do not pretend to understand his reasoning for creating anything in any way. God's motives or incentives for creating a logical universe. However, even without the actual knowledge of God's motive, I can offer a human answer. Logic is something that limits the Universe -- Newton's laws of motions, the laws of conservation, etc. My opponent goes on to state the following: "The only rebuttal you came up with is semantic play. This is a cop-out. " First, this is not my only rebuttal -- I actually rebutted with several which he has kindly acknowledged by responding. Next, he accuses me of playing with semantics. On the contrary, I am actually using your definition of omnipotent, which you defined in your very first syllogism of Round 2, "God is all powerful. " In your very own definition, you did not place a limit on this. An all-powerful entity is just that -- all powerful. In saying "all powerful," by definition are not limiting the power. My argument stands and my opponent has used "straw man" instead of responding. I look forward my opponent's response.