Putting the cart before the horse: Reverse the accepted or logical order of things.
I often find it quite amusing when I see prominent atheists actually debating with theists about the attributes of the god of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims; which according to the proponents of those three religions of the book is one and the same god. That claim in and of itself is one that is debatable since the deity of the Old Testament and the New don't even seem like the same god. The same could be said about the god of Islam aka Allah.
I think that any discussion about the god or gods of the book are a perfect example of putting the cart before the horse. For instance, how could you argue logically or reasonably about the attributes of any deity without first proving that that deity exists? It's like arguing about the diet and preferred habitat and behavior of Bigfoot without first proving that he exists. How can you discuss whether Bigfoot is a nocturnal creature, a predator, or prey of some other creature of the woods? What can be known of something whose very existence is yet unknown?
When considering the so called attributes of the god of the bible you have to first go to the source of information where those attributes themselves are outlined. In our case they are outlined in the Bible itself. Now, considering this fact doesn't this fact alone defeat any argument that can be made about the attributes of God? Isn't this circular reasoning akin to the phrase Jesus loves me this I know because the Bible tells me so?
circular reasoning: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the
premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in
reasoning where no useful information is being shared.
In order for a theists to argue about the attributes of his god he must begin with a set of presuppositions. In this case the presupposition that God exists is one that is vacuous and without any supporting empirical or objective evidence. It is taken on faith which is no better than accepting a belief in something without evidence or reason like a gut feeling.
If you insist on arguing about God being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc. then you must first prove in my opinion that he exists. If you can't do so (which in fact to date I know of no one who has been able to do so convincingly) then there is nothing to discuss. Do you think that we should hold debates about Santa Clause, leprechauns, fairies, gnomes, etc. and their attributes without first proving that they exists? It sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Then why has man invested and wasted so much time and effort trying to discuss gods without a single piece of evidence for their existence? There is no difference.
The only reason that this subject is so "important" to some is that it gives them a sense of purpose to their own lives. They like to be comforted that beyond this life there is a better one in which they would be nothing but love, peace, and happiness. All these beliefs are just that nothing more than unfounded beliefs based on ancient myths and superstitions.
This is just my point of view on the entire matter although I think that this form of reasoning is valid and logical. Show me that your god exists both empirically and objectively or else we have nothing to discuss. Sacred texts don't count as evidence, neither do subjective experiences, etc. In closing any and all arguments about God and his attributes are nothing more than argument based on speculation and amount to nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
argument from ignorance: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.