The God of Abraham probably does not exist

The reason I didn't spend the whole round on a single argument, is because it is unnecessary. All my arguments are fairly simple and self-explanatory, but if you wish I'll be more thorough. But first let's look at this ontological argument. Well first we should be weary of an argument that tries to define something into existence. I find it it interesting that Ajab thinks that we cannot imagine the idea of god. I'm sure he thinks all other concepts of god are imagined, but let's see if we can imagine god.1) I can observe that I have certain attributes(intelligence, power, and goodness). 2) I can conceive of a being with the same attributes but of a higer magnitude3) Follwing the same line of thought, I can conceive of a being who knows everything, can do anything and is all good.Well I think 1 and 2 are obvious but I have a feeling he has a problem with 3. "we cannot understand infinity because it digresses from both quantity and quality." Well I'm not sure he meant this; Ajab is familiar with mathematics and I'm sure he knows that all mathematicians have a concept understand infinity. I will wait to explain 3, until Ajab offers an objection. It seems all we need to imagine a god, is an idea of ourselves. I'd like you to go into more detail on why we can't understand infinity. Attributes: Ajab says : " lease remember that when Khalif talks about omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence they seem to take on the forms of absolute constructs. I remind the readers that where I can show from Abrahamic sources how these qualities are at times subjective"Well, I don't know how something can be objective and subjective. Omnipotent: "having unlimited power; able to do anything." I would like Ajab to explain how this is non-absolute. I have read the Koran, throughout it says "He is able to do all things". Well, I think it's obvious that a being can't be omnipotent and not be omnipotent but let's use syllogisms because they're cool.1) If a being is omnipotent , it can do anything.2) If a being is omnipotent, then there is nothing that the being can't do.3) If there is something that the being can't do, then the being is not omnipotent.4) An omnipotent being can't exist, therefor doesn't exist.5) If a being must be omnipotent, in order to exist, then the being can't exist1 is true by definition, 2 is a derivation of 1, 3 naturally follows, 5 follows from 4. So I shall have to defend 4.1) An omnippotent being can create an object it can't lift.2) If an omnipotent being can create an object it can't lift, it can't lift the object, thus it isn't omnipotent3) If it can't create an object it can't lift, then it is not omnipotent.4) Omnipotence is impossible.I know this is a logical impossibility, but omnipotence means able to do anything. In response most theists say god can only do which is logically possible. Which is the same as saying god can do anything, but that which is logically impossible, This is to completely concede omnipotence. I think we have good reason to think omnipotence can't actually exist, and so it follows that being that is necessarily omnipotent, can't exist.Even If Omnipotence Were Possible, God Still Can't Exist.Remember god is also defined as omniscient. Once again, omniscience and omnipotence is negated by the problem of free will.1) God knows the future(true by virtue of omniscience)2) God knows what actions he will perform(true by virtue of omniscience)3) God can't change his future(if he did, he would have known he would, thus it was part of the original series of events.)(true by virtue of omniscience)4) God's actions are predetermined(true by virtue of omniscience)5) God has no free will.(true by virtue of omnisciece).I don't think I should have to go through a whole bunch of logical and philosophical jargon, all my arguments are simple and hinge upon definitions.Also, the problem of evil seems to negate omnibenevolence.So, I think Ajab has to demonstrate his god can exist before he asserts that the god must exist.This may be due to my own ignorance, but it seems to me if god can't exist, then the argument fails. It seems akin to arguing for the existence of a square-circle. Also I'd like to note that most apologists don't take the ontological argument seriously anymore. Even Kant objected to it.Quick responses: I don't accept that we can't understand quantum physics. I don't even know what you mean by that. I understand that we probably don't know everything about quantum mechanics, but it's obvious we seem to have a good understanding. I'm sure you understand Schrodinger's equation and uncertainty, so I don't exactly know what you mean, when you say we don't.Also I'd like clarification on what it means to exist outside of time and space. If something exists in no time and no space, it seems to be synonymous with something that doesn't exist.