The Incoherent Attribute Argument is Sound

IntroductionMy opponent has said that it is my duty "to either show: (1) The attributes are not really contradictory; or (2) That it is possible for a being with contradictory attributes to exist. " I will do both. I will show that not only are the supposedly contradictory attributes not contradictory, but I will also show that even if this was the case, this God could still exist. I will structure my response in to parts: the rebuttal, which will provide a response to my opponent's contentions, and my own arguments, which will provide my opponent something to counter to. RebuttalI will provide a rebuttal to my opponent's argument that the aforementioned attributes are contradictory. Omnipotent v. OmniscientI agree with my opponent on the first two points of his syllogism. However, he seems to believe that these two attributes are mutually exclusive in regard to the future. He says in statement 3 of his syllogism, "a being who knows the future is powerless to change it. " This is not the case. An omnipotent God that can change the future knows how he will create it. Can a God that is all-powerful not change the future according to the way he destines it? Take the following analogy:1. An essayist is God.2. The essayist knows word for word how his essay (the future) will be finished.3. The essayist writes it according to his plan. The essayist writes his essay (omnipotence) in the way he envisioned it, word for word (omniscience). Can a God not determine the way he decides the future? I have disproved statement 3 of his syollogism, therefore statement 4 is false. Immutable v. OmnibenevolentAgain my opponent draws false assumptions. He writes that because immutability requires the attributed to not change, it also "cannot be affected by any events," and therefore cannot be omnibenevolent (all-loving). However, these two attributes are not contradictory as my opponent asserts; in fact, one actually supports the other. The immutability of God reinforces omnibenevolence: a God that does not change in his attributes does not change in his omnibenevolence. A God that is unchangeable is unchangeable in his attributes; that is, he is immutable in his omnipotence, omniscience, etc. , and omnibenevolence. It is not that God is not immutable because he loves all; rather, it is that he is unchanging in his omnibenevolence because of his immutability. My opponent defines immutability in that he is unchanged in his ability to be affected by earthly events, and therefore his ability to love; however, immutability, on a higher and more divine sense, is that he is unchanged in his attributes, and thus is unchanged in his omnibenevolence. Just v. MercifulAgain, my opponent draws the conclusion that justice and mercy are mutually exclusive. As God is omnipotent, it is well within his ability to define morality. Because he can define morality, he can similarly define what is just as a punishment for a lack of morality. Thus, he may be merciful in a punishment, but he is just in that he is the one who defines it. Thus, he may be merciful in punishment; and thus, he is similarly just in punishment because he defines justice. ArgumentsI will now provide various arguments. Incoherency existsIncoherent objects actually do exist. For example, a Beryllium ion was caught in the superposition of two quantum states (in a similar manner to Schrodinger's cat, as defined by this article: . http://goo.gl...). The ion was in what called "quantum decoherence. " Earthly definitionsYou yourself defined God as "ineffable" in that he is too great to be described in words. This is clearly the case: our words simply cannot accurately describe God's attributes. We may say he is omnipotent (see below), but we may put a limit to that omnipotence to what our human minds are capable of. Similarly, we attempt to define immortality to "living forever," as if God is limited to our own perception of time, etc. You yourself used several passages from a Matt Slick, who, like all of us, has a human mind and thus limited human cognition. OmnipotenceMy opponent has equated omnipotent and all-powerful. I agree to this definition. This is important because all-powerful means he has the ability to change the very fabric of the Universe, in that he is not bound by human perception of what is logical. An omnipotent God could operate outside what we consider logical. For instance, an all-powerful God could be coherent and incoherent at the same time because his all-powerful. If my opponent was correct even in his statement that incoherent objects do not exist, in his human definitions of what we attribute to God, and in his assertion that God's attributes are contradictory, we must still remember that an omnipotent God, if he exists, is not bound by what we consider logical. ConclusionThrough my rebuttals, I have shown how the pairs of attributes my opponent has labeled contradictory are not so. I have also shown how even if they were contradictory, this disproves nothing about God's existence. I look forward to my opponent's response and wish him good luck.