God Can Gain Knowledge While Being Omniscient

An interesting argument put forward by my opponent. However, I do not think it succeeds, and I think we can have good reasons to see that it is incoherent for an omniscient being to gain knowledge.PreliminariesPrima facie implausibilityNow it's ironic that my opponent points this out, because it shows that he has an uphill battle. If something is prima facie incoherent, or seems prima facie true, we ought to accept this until it has been shown to be false. The reason is this: We have to believe something. This is true by the law of excluded middle. Either you believe it's true, or you don't believe it's true. So if we're going to believe something, then why not follow our intuition? If that thing over there looks red, we typically assume it's red, until we're given good reasons to think otherwise.Now my opponent readily admits that what he is arguing for is prima facie implausible. That's nice because that's half of this argument conceded. On face value, it seems that an omniscient being cannot gain knowledge. Thus, my opponent's arguments had better be pretty thorough. If I can cast a decent amount of doubt upon his arguments, then we shall retreat to our original position, and I have fulfilled my burden. Of course, I'll be giving other arguments anyways to further establish that an omniscient being cannot gain knowledge.I. RebuttalsI'll now rebut my opponent's arguments. A summary of my opponent's argument My opponent's argument is essentially...P1: The totality of all possible knowledge is something which is always changingP2: God knows the totality of all knowledgeC: God knows something which is always changing. Assuming God is in timeMy opponent has assumed that God is "in" time. That God is NOW thinking this, and then in the future, will be thinking or knowing something else. But in the definition that he gave, there is absolutely no reason to believe that God is bound to time. Since God has not been defined to be inside of time, we should be given arguments to believe that God must be inside of time. My opponent has not done so. Thus, his argument is rendered unfounded, and unsound, since we have been given absolutely no reasons to think that God is inside of time.This is evidenced throughout his argument, when he claims.. "So, at both 7:00pm, and 8:00pm, God knew everything there was to know, even though he gained knowledge at 8:00pm".This is an implicit assumption my opponent has made and has not defended. Assuming that knowledge "changing form" is "gaining knowledge" My opponent equivocates between knowledge which changes form, and new knowledge. If I know that tomorrow I will eat a cheeseburger, and then tomorrow I do eat a cheeseburger, have I gained new knowledge? Not really. It's just changed form. The relational property of time has changed, however, the knowledge itself has not changed.If I leave a peanut butter sandwich in the freezer, and it stays exactly the same, but then I got in at a different time, is it now a "different sandwich"? Sure, the relational property may have changed, however relational properties are not intrinsic. They are extrinsic, since they require something else (the measurement of time) to identify them. So if I take a ball, and shine a red light on it, and then a blue light, are these now different balls? Obviously they're the same.Otherwise we could apply Leibniz's law and show that every second everything around us is a "different" thing.Likewise, God's knowledge is the same knowledge from the present to the future.This is essentially the age-old argument which Heraclitus made. If anything changes, then it's not the same thing, right? Well that's obviously false. Things do maintain continuity of being despite relational properties. If they didn't, then we'd have an epistemical problem on our hands, and would have to sacrifice common sense. My opponent has given absolutely zero arguments to believe that if the relational property of something changes, then the thing itself has changed.Let's put it this way. God knows that Rational_Thinker will watch Southpark (yes, I changed it) on Wednesday. The time at which God knows this is irrelevant, since this is a relational property, which is extrinsic. The time at which we think a thought, does not change what the thought is.II. My arguments.Argument 1: A horned argumentP1: EITHER God is inside of time, OR he is not.P2: If God is inside of time, he cannot gain knowledge.P3: If God is outside of time, he cannot gain knowledge.C: Therefore, in either case, God cannot "gain" knowledge. This is a horned argument. I'll show that whether or not God is "inside" time is besides the point. Remember that we've never been given any arguments to think God is inside of time in the first place though.Premise 1.Now I've explained P1 above, but I'll recap. Time is a relational property. If God is in time, the relational property (time) changes. However, just because a relational property changes, this does not mean that the thing itself changes. If the thing itself changed, then God would have to go from not knowing something to knowing it. This doesn't happen. God knows I will eat a burger tomorrow at a certain time, regardless of what temporal state he is in. The temporal state is extrinsic to the knowledge itself.In other words, my opponent is confusing epistemology (when we know something) with ontology (what it is we know). This is like comparing apples to oranges.Premise 2.If God is outside of time, then he cannot change. If God cannot change, then he cannot "lose" or "gain" something, since this is a change. Hence, if God is outside of time he cannot lose or gain knowledge. Argument 2: Comparing "gain" to "loss"P1: IF God can gain knowledge, then he can lose knowledge.P2: God cannot lose knowledgeC: God cannot gain knowledgeWe can see a comparison between gaining something and losing something. In both cases, a potential is changed to something actual. So if God can gain knowledge (there can be a potential knowledge for him to know, which is then actualized) it seems reasonable to believe that the opposite can happen. After all, whatever is gained can also be lost. So if God can "gain" knowledge, then he can also "lose" knowledge. But obviously if he "lost" knowledge, he would not be omniscient.Thus God cannot gain knowledge.ConclusionIn conclusion, it doesn't matter whether or not God is inside of time, or outside of it. Even if time changes, the knowledge God has does not change. Time is an extrinsic relational property, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the knowledge itself.So my opponent's arguments are extremely counter-intuitive, rest on incredibly implausible metaphysical assumptions, are actually very weak and stand completely refuted. Furthermore, it has been shown that an omniscient being cannot gain knowledge by a horned argument, as well as comparing "gain" to "loss"Thank you