The Incoherent Attribute Argument is Sound

My opponent has attempted to prove that beings with contradictory attributes can exist and God's attributes are non-contradictory. In this round, I will attempt to show how my opponent's arguments are false. Omnipotent v. OmniscientWe are both in agreence that if God were to exist, then He is necessarily all-powerful and all-knowing. My opponent asks, "Can a God that is all-powerful not change the future according to the way he destines it? " My opponent's response totally misses the point. God is supposedly a being with free-will; therefore, He should be able to change the future. However, if he changes the future, then he really did not know the future at all. Take, for example, this following analogy: I know that tomorrow, X is definately goaing to happen. Because I know beyond certain that X is going to happen, I am powerless to change X. Although I can attempt to prevent X, I am still powerless. However, if I did change X, then I really did not know that X was going to happen with a 100% certainty. Conclusion: I have shown that my opponents "rebuttal" completely missess the point and is not a rebuttal at all. Immutable v. OmnibenevolentAgain, my opponent's rebuttal completely missess the point. "God is unchangeable in his attributes" is true, which is a better definition of immutability. However, when we conteplate the concept of what love is, premise 4 is forced. A better name is called the "Immutability-vs. -Personhood Argument. " The idea is that it would be that in order to be genuinely a person (or personal being), it is necessary that one being capable of being affected by what happens. Consider this syllogism: 1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i. e. , outside space and time).2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).3. If something is transcendent, then it cannot exist and perform actions within time.4. But a person (or personal being) must exist and perform actions within time.5. Therefore, something that is transcendent cannot be a person (or personal being) (from 3 and 4).6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). [1]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. My opponent once again misses the point. If we say that God is just (i. e. , giving what is deserved) then he cannot give less than is deserved. "[H]e 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. " I do not quite understand this. Once again, you are missing the point. It is impossible for God to both administer justice and not administer justice! Rebuttal to your arguments Incoherency existsCan you please offer me an example of a being with contradictory attributes existing? (i. e. , an Invisible Pink Unicorn! ) Moreover, you obviously have no clue what a Quantum Decoherence actaully is. A quantum decoherence is the loss of coherence or ordering of the phase angles between the components of a system in a quantum superposition. [2] Quantum decoherences have nothing to do with contradictory attributes! Decoherence=/=Incoherence Earthly definitionsI did not define God as ineffable. That was a characteristic of God given by the Catholic Church. If you say that he is too great to describe in words, then how is it that we possibly know what God is? My characteristics of God and definitions are based upon respected theologians. Omnipotence"God cannot be logical if he wants. .. " Well then, why did he create us to be logical? Does an all-knowing God have the all-power to change his future mind? The only rebuttal you came up with is semantic play. This is a cop-out. References[1] Drange, Theodore. Incompatible-Properties: A Survey. . http://www.philoonline.org...;[2] "Author Unknown. " Quantum decoherence. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;