Why do so many think God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving?

[Beet]

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?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.

[Beet]

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?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.

This is NOT the definition of God.

You have a very weird "all or nothing" approach, like I described in my OP.

No I don't. I said without that definition, Zeus could be a God. The Greeks believed in him, and so can you. But what's the point of believing in Zeus? It's just a fairy tale.

If you don't accept my definition, what's your definition? I'm assuming Zeus fits under it.

[Beet]

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?

Beyond scriptural reasons, this is the definition of God. Otherwise, God would just be a fairy tale. You could say Zeus was God. There would be no reason to have only one, because if God isn't all-powerful, then there could be another being like him that shares power.

This is NOT the definition of God.

You have a very weird "all or nothing" approach, like I described in my OP.

No I don't. I said without that definition, Zeus could be a God. The Greeks believed in him, and so can you. But what's the point of believing in Zeus? It's just a fairy tale.

If you don't accept my definition, what's your definition? I'm assuming Zeus fits under it.

I feel like you're not explaining your thought process well.

Nobody knows with certain proof and scientific evidence if there is a God (or Gods). The Bible could be a fairy tale too. (And personally, even as a Christian, I do believe it contains several "fairy tales.")

"What's the point of believing in the God of the Bible?" someone could equally say as you did about Zeus. Someone could say that's just a fairy tale too.

Nobody knows, if there is a God, the limit of God's power/knowledge/compassion just that it must be great.

Even Christians admit the Ancient Greeks treated Zeus as a God.

You are being unfair. First, you ask people why they believe in an "all-or-nothing" approach to God. Then, when they try to answer, you accuse them of being "all-or-nothing". But the question you asked will only elicit answers from people who believe this, in the first place.

You still have not answered my question: What is your definition of God?

[Beet]

Thanks for answering the question. Again, I would argue under your definition, which says that God is a "supreme being", that being supreme necessitates being all-powerful and all-knowing, or else you are not necessarily supreme. All-loving is a trickier one and I concede God may not be all-loving, but I would argue that being all knowing implies all-loving, since it means God knows the feelings and pain of each person.