The existence of the Judeo-Christian God is impossible

C1.1 A scriptural basis of immutability is found in Malachi 3:6 (NASB). It reads, "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O son of Jacob, are not consumed." James 1:17 (NASB) states, "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." God says He doesn't change and He is immutable but in what sense is this true? It appears my opponent is holding to a stronger and radical sense of immutability, namely, absolute immutability where God cannot be affected by events. Pro writes, "to be affected is to be changed in some way. Therefore, P3 must be true by definition." So we return to my original question: In what sense is God immutable and what does that entail? God is immutable with regards to his character and/or nature. So does God change? In a sense God experiences change. For example after creation, God obtains an awareness of tense or the passage of time.[1] For God to change it means he changes extrinsically. Contradiction puts it perfectly, "Change need not be ontologically positive or negative, there can be such thing as neutral change. Suppose I paint my red wall blue. My wall has changed, but this change does not add or detract to its being, it is neutral. In the same way, God's creation of the universe need not be construed as implying a deficiency on his part" [2] Take for example God becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ. All of God's attributes such as goodness, love, and power remain intact. All God does is add the attributes of "becoming incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth."[3] Note God doesn't lose anything from his nature or attributes. These do not change; they remain intact. Christian Philosopher Paul Copan notes, "As Historical theologian Jaroslav Pelikan has shown, God's immutability in Scripture, contrary to certain theological portrayals, refers to his promise keeping covenant faithfulness and reliable character."[4] Moreover, Christian philosopher and theologian William lane Craig lends an excellent clarification of this point. He writes, "Rejection of radical immutability nonetheless leaves it open for us to affirm that God is immutable in the biblical sense of being constant and unchangeable in his character. Moreover, he is immutable in his existence (necessity, aseity, eternity) and his being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent" (emphasis mine).[5] So it seems as if the 3rd premise is shaky and false. Moreover, it seems as if my opponent's view of "change" is somewhat ambiguous. What type of change are we speaking of? I've already mentioned God can change in a neutral sense. It also seems as if Pro is conflating Divine Immutability and Divine Impassibility. If God is immutable, that is, "God is constant in his character and virtue; that God is not fickle; and that God will remain true to his promises,"[6] then why is it that God can be affected by our actions? God can be affected by what we do such as in Genesis 6:6 where God was "grieved in His heart." Does this undermine God's power in anyway? No, he strikes a balance between the two; God is not entirely indifferent to his creation, yet he is not affected so much that he is at the mercy of his creation. He strikes a relational balance between the two as being a personal God. It seems as if premise 3 is false. God's immutability entails his character and necessary attributes remain the same, and God can be affected by events in a neutral sense and by his relation to creation. C1.2 Remember I denied premise 5. What's so contradictory about a judge sentencing someone to what he deserves but offering him a pardon from it? [7] Human beings are in a position where they have a debt that they cannot pay alone. Christ's death on the cross satisfies that debt, and God not only becomes the judge but the justifier. Copan writes, "The reason the innocent Jesus can take our punishment is that forgiveness is actually through the 'agreement' or willing participation between (a) the offenders, (b) the offended, and (c) the willing (or surrogate)-namely, us, God, and the Son of God." [8] Kevin Lewis adds, "Christ is God incarnate; Christ is the offended party. That's why He's the only one that can pay for sins. Only God can do this because he's the offended party. Only the person you've offended can forgive you of your sins and bear that burden."[9] So once again, Christ has become that perfect sacrifice of both mercy and justice. We are sentenced to what we deserve, but we are given a pardon to accept. My opponents video fails to realize that a 3rd party is added to the mix. That makes no sense. In this case, the offended party, namely, God comes and takes care of the issue. "God says that everyone will die for his own sins, yet Jesus did not sin so isn't that contradictory?" No, it's not. Everyone dies as a result of sin. However, Jesus gave his life away. C2Recall I denied premise 1, 2, and even 3. Each of these premises are controversial. Recall I mentioned that some Christians hold to varying degrees of inspiration and its interpretation.What is the doctrine of inspiration? Well first it is that Scripture is "God breathed" and "God's authoritative self revelation." [10] But since I hold to a conservatively high view of Divine Inspiration, I will drop the charge against the first premise and I will focus my attention on the 3rd premise. Keep in mind the two points I made: 1)dealing with the contradictions will be ad hoc, since we cannot prove all these contradictions are merely apparent unless we deal with each individually 2) all I must do is provide a logically possible explanation to show that there is no necessary contradiction. Who was Josephs father?The gospels were written within the first century which was well in the lifetime of opponents of Christianity. It was important for the Jews to see the genealogies to verify whether Jesus was the Messiah. So as the site mentioned, all the Jews had to do was show the records to be wrong or contradictory and Christianity would have never gotten far with the claims of Christ. Furthermore, Theologian John Macarthur notes in his Bible Commentary that "the two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy and Matthew's version represents Joseph's…Joseph was 'the son of Heli' by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and thus is named here in verse 23 as the representative of Mary's generation."[11] John Lightfoot also agrees in his commentary saying, "[And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary.] The mother's family is not to be called a family. Hence the reason may very easily be given, why Matthew brings down the generation to Joseph, Mary's husband; but Luke to Eli, Mary's father. These two frame the genealogy two ways, according to the double notion of the promise of Christ."[12] So Eli/Heli is Mary's father and the genealogy here is being traced through her line and Matthew traces the genealogy through Joseph, hence his real father being Jacob.[13] Also using "son" has a variety of uses such as genealogical abridgment or used "to describe kinship without sonship." For example, "Jair is another example of this principle. He was a distant son-in-law of Manasseh (1st Chronicles 2:21-23 and 7:14-15); yet, he was called the "son of Manasseh" (Numbers 32:41, Deuteronomy 3:14, 1st Kings 4:13)."[14] The importance of Jesus being a descendant of David was because of prophecy that pertained to the Messiah in Jeremiah 23:5-6. So the claim was never that because you are a descendent of David therefore you are the messiah. This is obviously one signal out of MANY that points to messiahship. Tyre and Ezekiel Due to space I will respond to this in the closing round. In conclusion, I've denied premise 3 of the Immutable argument and premise 5 of the just v mercy argument. I've shown both arguments are therefore unsound and I've given a reconciliation to the apparent contradiction with Josephs father.