God can be God without being all three of the following: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving.

[Blue3]

So many people, including even atheists arguing the problem of evil, seem to think that God (if God exists) needs to be:

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Why?

The WORST response to this line of questioning I've heard is: "If God isn't those 3 things, then God isn't real, or he isn't worth worshipping" or "If God isn't those 3 things, then that isn't God." Really? Seriously? If God isn't all 3 of these things, then you'd go from strong believer into solid atheist? Or you would no longer feel you have to listen to God? Or that this God wouldn't actually be considered a "god"? Really?

God could be extremely powerful... maybe even powerful enough to resurrect the dead, or preserve souls after death (or maybe not)... but not omnipotent.

God could be nearly all-knowing... but maybe doesn't know the future or what decisions people will make, not omniscient.

God could be all-loving in the true/objective sense, God is all-loving from his point of view, but it might not line up with what some individuals would consider all-loving from their point of view (or maybe they would, if they had God's knowledge).



What are your thoughts on this topic?

[RINO Tom]

"God," as the term is used in literally 99.9% of instances, mostly refers to one abstract entity - the creator of the Universe and "first cause" for the material existence in which we find ourselves.  I suppose it is entirely hypothetically possible for God not to check all of those boxes, but most philosophical exercises trying to imagine what such a being would be like leads you naturally toward believing "God" is all three, IMO.  The third one is the most open-ended, but as far as #1 and #2:

1. For God not to be "all-powerful," one of two things would have to be true; either there is another "bulk Universe" or whatever that contains God Himself or God purposely limited what "powers" He has to act upon the Universe.  In the case of the first, you could argue God is "not God," as something else would have had to impose rules on God ... and that would really be "God," wouldn't it?  As far as the second scenario, if God imposed those limits on Himself, could He not just get rid of them at any time?

2. Regarding being all-knowing, I believe He would have to be all-knowing, at least as it relates to the existence we are aware of.  Such a God would have created time and space, and this being's perception of both would be as an "outsider."  It is a literal necessity that this God would have access to moments of time as a dimension, ala the end of Interstellar with the bookcase, and this would logically include the future.  I would have to know all of the rules and possibilities to a board game that I created, and the thoughts of my hypothetically sentient board game pieces would be so laughably limited to contemplate this.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

All the worlds most popular religions argue that god is all of the following though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think that the third point is the wobbliest one to try and base arguments about God off of, because while God is omnibenevolent, His referent is not me or any other person and He considers factors that are beyond human comprehension and fundamentally unknowable to us. He takes a deep interest in each individual person's welfare, but how His love for us manifests may be surprising.

     A radical notion that was suggested to me recently was that in some instances God might elect to smite someone as an act of kindness, because if they were allowed to live they might invite condemnation upon themselves. I heard an Orthodox Christian hypothesize this about Thomas Aquinas; he died before he was supposed to go to the Council of Lyons, and the claim is that God willed this so he could die in ignorance of the Orthodox belief and not be judged for having rejected it. While I disagree with certain points there (and I know my Roman Catholic friends will disagree with certain other points!), the supposition that God could do something like that for someone's benefit defies what a lot of us would typically associate as being omnibenevolent behavior. Yet it is sometimes logical for Him to act this way if His intention is to save the soul of one who is about to fall into a condemnation that that person will not repent from.

[Ferguson97]

The overwhelming majority of these criticisms are directed towards monotheistic, Abrahamic religions.  

1. all-powerful (omnipotent)
2. all-knowing (omniscient)
3. all-loving (omnibenevolent)

Is there any major sect of Christianity/Judaism/Islam that claims God is not all three of these things?

The arguments are fairly straight-forward:

Is God aware of the suffering in the world?
If he is not aware, then he is not all-knowing.

If God is aware of the suffering in the world, is he capable of ending it?
If he is not capable, then he is not all-powerful.

If God is aware of the suffering in the world and capable of ending it, is he willing to do so?
If he is not willing, then he is not all-loving.

Because there is suffering in the world, all three of these cannot be true.

If God is all-knowing and all-loving, but not all-powerful, then how can he be called a God? He supposedly created the universe from nothing, but he can't give the Earth more resources.

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, but not all-loving, then why is he worthy of our worship? And if you're going to argue that his conceptions of morality are beyond our understanding, why would he create us to be incapable of understand the moral truths of the universe? What would be the benefit of that?

If God is all-loving and all-powerful, but not all-knowing, why does he not give himself the ability to be all-knowing? (And if he is not capable of doing this, then he is certainly not all-powerful.)

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, but I'm not going to worship him anyway.

[Del Tachi]

The whole Bible can be read as an extended solution to the "problem of evil." 

God works on cosmic rather than worldly scales.  Any pain or suffering that humans experience in this life is extremely fleeting in comparison to the whole of eternity.  God has secured eternity for us through the atoning work of the cross.  Christus Victor!  O death, where is thy sting? 

[Alcibiades]

The whole Bible can be read as an extended solution to the "problem of evil." 

God works on cosmic rather than worldly scales.  Any pain or suffering that humans experience in this life is extremely fleeting in comparison to the whole of eternity.  God has secured eternity for us through the atoning work of the cross.  Christus Victor!  O death, where is thy sting? 

Why didn’t God just create us all already in heaven then? What’s the point of the brief prelude in this evil-ridden world?

[RINO Tom]

The whole Bible can be read as an extended solution to the "problem of evil." 

God works on cosmic rather than worldly scales.  Any pain or suffering that humans experience in this life is extremely fleeting in comparison to the whole of eternity.  God has secured eternity for us through the atoning work of the cross.  Christus Victor!  O death, where is thy sting? 

Why didn’t God just create us all already in heaven then? What’s the point of the brief prelude in this evil-ridden world?

Would ANYTHING good have a true, meaningful value without something bad?  I genuinely do not think so.

[Blue3]

The whole Bible can be read as an extended solution to the "problem of evil." 

God works on cosmic rather than worldly scales.  Any pain or suffering that humans experience in this life is extremely fleeting in comparison to the whole of eternity.  God has secured eternity for us through the atoning work of the cross.  Christus Victor!  O death, where is thy sting? 

Why didn’t God just create us all already in heaven then? What’s the point of the brief prelude in this evil-ridden world?

Would ANYTHING good have a true, meaningful value without something bad?  I genuinely do not think so.

(if we take a Christian/Abrahamic theological approach)
Perhaps that’s due to our fallen nature, that so many can’t perceive the good without a contrast to the bad. Remember God saw that it was all good before the fall.

[Alcibiades]

The whole Bible can be read as an extended solution to the "problem of evil." 

God works on cosmic rather than worldly scales.  Any pain or suffering that humans experience in this life is extremely fleeting in comparison to the whole of eternity.  God has secured eternity for us through the atoning work of the cross.  Christus Victor!  O death, where is thy sting? 

Why didn’t God just create us all already in heaven then? What’s the point of the brief prelude in this evil-ridden world?

Would ANYTHING good have a true, meaningful value without something bad?  I genuinely do not think so.

Well, even if that’s true, the problem is that much of the evil that currently exists and has historically existed in the world seems extremely excessive for these purposes; after all, if the amount of good and evil in the world were perfectly balanced by God to bring out “true, meaningful value”, then how could all of our efforts to reduce human suffering — many of which have of course been very successful — be morally justified?

[RINO Tom]

The whole Bible can be read as an extended solution to the "problem of evil." 

God works on cosmic rather than worldly scales.  Any pain or suffering that humans experience in this life is extremely fleeting in comparison to the whole of eternity.  God has secured eternity for us through the atoning work of the cross.  Christus Victor!  O death, where is thy sting? 

Why didn’t God just create us all already in heaven then? What’s the point of the brief prelude in this evil-ridden world?

Would ANYTHING good have a true, meaningful value without something bad?  I genuinely do not think so.

Well, even if that’s true, the problem is that much of the evil that currently exists and has historically existed in the world seems extremely excessive for these purposes; after all, if the amount of good and evil in the world were perfectly balanced by God to bring out “true, meaningful value”, then how could all of our efforts to reduce human suffering — many of which have of course been very successful — be morally justified?

(I'm not speaking of the "Judeo-Christian God" here, necessarily - more vague.)

I just think that applying this type of logic - while theoretically sound as far as human reasoning goes - to a being that created the very logic you are using has an inherent problem.  I admit that is sort of a "mind " or even a copout, but it also makes sense.  Whatever being theoretically created the Universe, EVERY single thought we have would ultimately derive from some base material/idea that did not exist before the moment of creation.  For all I know, in the absolute grand scheme of things that encompasses whatever multiverses might exist or whatever extra-dimensional realms there are or whatever, the suffering in our world isn't extreme at all.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The whole Bible can be read as an extended solution to the "problem of evil." 

God works on cosmic rather than worldly scales.  Any pain or suffering that humans experience in this life is extremely fleeting in comparison to the whole of eternity.  God has secured eternity for us through the atoning work of the cross.  Christus Victor!  O death, where is thy sting? 

Why didn’t God just create us all already in heaven then? What’s the point of the brief prelude in this evil-ridden world?

This is to ask--if not to ask only this--why God gave Man (free) will.

[Saint Milei]

This wouldn't make sense and classical proofs of God explain why.

[Blue3]

This wouldn't make sense and classical proofs of God explain why.

It definitely could.

God could have set the events of creation in motion... without being able to totally write/alter all the laws of physics.

God could be extremely knowledgeable of everything in the universe, but still not know with certainty how the future will play out, especially if due to free will or just the random probabilities governing the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and their butterfly effects.

God could be extremely loving of all, but God's definition of love might not always match our definition of love.

[Mr. Smith]

The whole Bible can be read as an extended solution to the "problem of evil." 

God works on cosmic rather than worldly scales.  Any pain or suffering that humans experience in this life is extremely fleeting in comparison to the whole of eternity.  God has secured eternity for us through the atoning work of the cross.  Christus Victor!  O death, where is thy sting? 

Why didn’t God just create us all already in heaven then? What’s the point of the brief prelude in this evil-ridden world?

He did. It was a choice to come here to not just randomly be here, but to learn and one day become him.

[Saint Milei]

This wouldn't make sense and classical proofs of God explain why.

It definitely could.

God could have set the events of creation in motion... without being able to totally write/alter all the laws of physics.

God could be extremely knowledgeable of everything in the universe, but still not know with certainty how the future will play out, especially if due to free will or just the random probabilities governing the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and their butterfly effects.

God could be extremely loving of all, but God's definition of love might not always match our definition of love.

without being able to totally write/alter all the laws of physics.

You miss the point here and I understand why you do because it's difficult to understand. But it doesn't make sense. You're taking law in the sense of legality or rules and equating it with law in the sense of truth or how things really work. All-knowing and all-powerful are related since both depend on each other. All-knowing allows you to know what something is, how it is, and how it will operate. That doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want.

Example A - it's nonsensical to think God can create another being/God that holds everything God does.

Example B - If a square is something that has 4 sides, 4 angles, adds up to 360 degrees, and every angle is the same, a square won't lose those properties. a square can't become a circle.

God could be extremely knowledgeable of everything in the universe, but still not know with certainty how the future will play out,

Say this out loud and tell yourself how this makes sense. It doesn't.

but God's definition of love might not always match our definition of love.

God is objectivity. That's an attribute. Humans aren't. Our conception of love is either flawed, inconsistent, a contradiction, or not even love. We just call it that because we lack knowledge.

[RINO Tom]

^ Good post.  If anyone, religious or irreligious, is thinking of "God" as anything less than a practically incomprehensible, non-physical consciousness/intelligence that exists outside of space-time, he is already lost in this philosophical exercise.  There is no Post-Axial Age religion that does not present "God" as the primal and eternal first cause of existence ... using independent human logic to try to come up with rules or regulations for such a being is kind of a fool's errand.  What religions claim is to have some sort of (very limited, in the grand scheme of things) insight into the character (or extra-dimensional equivalent, I suppose) of such a being ... not its metaphysical makeup or practical limitations.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

What are your thoughts on this topic?

If God is not omnipotent, then there is an open question as to whether a more powerful being than God exists. This seems to contradict a typical definition of God as a being of which there can be nothing greater.

If God is not omnibenevolent, then there is a similar open question as to whether there exists a more morally good being than God. And if we think being morally good is an attribute of excellence or perfection or greatness, then we get the same contradiction of the possibility of a more excellent or more perfect or greater being than God existing.

The replies to this thread seem to be defining God as omnibenevolent but beyond human knowledge, which is not strictly denying God is perfectly good. But I think this creates a different problem of radically destabilising human relationship to God. If we don't know whether lying is evil or good according to God, we don't know if God is lying to us through his revelation and could pull Uno reverse on divine promises and reward the wicked and faithless and damn faithful people to eternal torture for no reason. There would be no surety that any human action has any relation to any part of God's will or judgement at all, therefore no certain reason for doing anything in relation to God.

I think many people are attracted to theism because God provides some explanation or order to the universe and their own lives. God being beyond our moral understanding opens the door to a radically arbitrary universe where nothing happens for any reason at all.

[RINO Tom]

What are your thoughts on this topic?

If God is not omnipotent, then there is an open question as to whether a more powerful being than God exists. This seems to contradict a typical definition of God as a being of which there can be nothing greater.

If God is not omnibenevolent, then there is a similar open question as to whether there exists a more morally good being than God. And if we think being morally good is an attribute of excellence or perfection or greatness, then we get the same contradiction of the possibility of a more excellent or more perfect or greater being than God existing.

The replies to this thread seem to be defining God as omnibenevolent but beyond human knowledge, which is not strictly denying God is perfectly good. But I think this creates a different problem of radically destabilising human relationship to God. If we don't know whether lying is evil or good according to God, we don't know if God is lying to us through his revelation and could pull Uno reverse on divine promises and reward the wicked and faithless and damn faithful people to eternal torture for no reason. There would be no surety that any human action has any relation to any part of God's will or judgement at all, therefore no certain reason for doing anything in relation to God.

I think many people are attracted to theism because God provides some explanation or order to the universe and their own lives. God being beyond our moral understanding opens the door to a radically arbitrary universe where nothing happens for any reason at all.

I'm not saying this doesn't make me a bit uncomfortable, but I would not necessarily say it is unrealistic.  Personally, I believe in a "God" (using this term for simplicity's sake) because I happen to find that the most logical explanation for the Universe existing.  The rest is just "working from that point on."

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean, ultimately it's just a matter of definition. Most people in the Abrahamic tradition tend to want to hold to all three of the "omni-"s, but I don't think there's anything Incorrect with abandoning or relaxing some of them as such. I have to say though that the people who'd much sooner give up on God's benevolence (or define it in such a way as to make the concept meaningless, like Pit did here) really disturb me. Why in the world would I want to love and worship God if I am not certain that He is good, truly good in the only sense of the word that is intelligible to a human being (ie as desiring the happiness of all beings)? Maybe out of fear, but if so God would hardly be different from any petty tyrant. I'd much rather qualify divine omnipotence more carefully, and indeed I think it's the simplest way to preserve the core of Abrahamic morality.

[The Mikado]

All the worlds most popular religions argue that god is all of the following though.

Maybe now, but the ancient Greeks certainly didn't think that any of their gods were all-loving (capricious pricks who humans were better off not attracting the attention of), all powerful, or especially all knowing.

Greek, Norse, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc pantheons all viewed the gods something akin to what people in the DC or Marvel universe would view superheroes as: people with strange unnatural powers far exceeding theirs who were basically people otherwise...and it's usually better not to come to their attention.