The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Premise 1:
If a being is omniscient, it knows every possible outcome of every possible creation.
Premise 2:
If a being is omnipotent, it has the power to bring about any logically possible outcome, including the existence of beings who are equally omniscient and omnipotent.
Premise 3:
A world where all sentient beings are equally omniscient and omnipotent would contain no involuntary suffering, no vulnerability, and no inequality, since each being could prevent harm to itself and others.
Premise 4:
A perfectly omnibenevolent being necessarily prefers the outcome that maximizes well-being and minimizes suffering.
Premise 5:
Creating vulnerable, ignorant, and powerless sentient beings when one could instead create equally omniscient and omnipotent beings knowingly introduces avoidable suffering.
Premise 6:
Knowingly introducing avoidable suffering contradicts omnibenevolence.
Conclusion 1:
If a deity created sentient beings who suffer, that deity either lacked the knowledge, the power, or the will to prevent that suffering.
Conclusion 2:
Therefore, such a deity cannot be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
1. If God could have made all beings equally omniscient and omnipotent but did not, God is not omnibenevolent.
2. If God wanted to but could not, God is not omnipotent.
3. If God did not know such a creation was possible, God is not omniscient.
Therefore, a being responsible for preventable suffering cannot be all three at once.
The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Moderator: Moderators
-
Compassionist
- Guru
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 1070 times
- Been thanked: 251 times
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Post #2[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]
Some questions re this subject I have asked Tanager to answer.
Some questions re this subject I have asked Tanager to answer.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Post #3[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]
If so, then such a god could have still made other beings as copies of itself - but why would such a god do so?
If so, then the god is totally aware of its limitations...but creates copies of itself anyway.
If so, then the god did not fully understand either its potency or its benevolence...but creates copies of itself anyway.
Would this mean that such a god could still be omniscient and omnipotent?1. If God could have made all beings equally omniscient and omnipotent but did not, God is not omnibenevolent.
If so, then such a god could have still made other beings as copies of itself - but why would such a god do so?
Could this mean that such a god could still be omniscient and omnibenevolent?2. If God wanted to but could not, God is not omnipotent.
If so, then the god is totally aware of its limitations...but creates copies of itself anyway.
Could this mean that such a god could still be omnipotent and omnibenevolent?3. If God did not know such a creation was possible, God is not omniscient.
If so, then the god did not fully understand either its potency or its benevolence...but creates copies of itself anyway.
Yet could still create stuff...like copies of itself...Therefore, a being responsible for preventable suffering cannot be all three at once.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 6220
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 89 times
- Been thanked: 272 times
Re: The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Post #4[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]
What is your support for premise 3? Why does knowing everything and having the power to do everything mean one would only do things that cause no suffering.
What is your support for premise 3? Why does knowing everything and having the power to do everything mean one would only do things that cause no suffering.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Post #5Me: In the vast database which AI was trained on, are there any such gods presented as all of those things…lets say - in any of major religious holy books?
AI: Yes. The God of classical theism, as understood in Christianity, Islam, and (with some philosophical nuance) Judaism, is explicitly described as being all three:
Omnipotent: Descriptions of God as the almighty creator, for whom nothing is impossible. (e.g., Genesis 18:14, Quran 2:20)
Omniscient: Descriptions of God’s infinite knowledge, knowing all things past, present, and future. (e.g., Psalm 147:5, 1 John 3:20, Quran 2:29)
Omnibenevolent: Descriptions of God being perfectly good, love itself, and full of mercy. (e.g., 1 John 4:8, Psalm 136, Quran 1:3)
This specific combination is precisely why the “Problem of Evil†is a central topic of debate in the theology of these faiths.
Me: Please now summarize completely and briefly the content of this discussion up to this point.
AI: We examined the “Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument.â€
Its premises argue that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity would create a world of equally powerful, knowing beings to prevent all suffering.
Since our world contains suffering, such a deity cannot logically possess all three attributes at once.
We agreed the logic is sound but noted it only challenges the specific tri-omni god of classical theism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism).
The argument does not disprove a creator god that lacks one of these attributes, or whose nature/benevolence is defined differently. The Problem of Evil remains a theological challenge, not a definitive disproof.
Me: Please expand on where AI points to “and (with some philosophical nuance) Judaismâ€â€¦
AI: Of course. The nuance with Judaism stems from its focus on God’s relationship and actions over abstract, philosophical perfection.
Key points:
Omnipotence: Generally affirmed, but with a strong tradition (e.g., Maimonides) that it means power over the possible, not the logically contradictory. God’s power is often shown through covenant and history, not just raw creation.
Omniscience: Affirmed, but a major debate exists, especially from the medieval period, about whether God’s foreknowledge is compatible with genuine human free will.
Omnibenevolence: This is the most nuanced. God is unequivocally “good†(Psalm 136:1), but the definition is often rooted in justice (tzedek), covenant loyalty (chesed), and corrective punishment—not just the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. The Book of Job and much of the Tanakh grapple deeply with God’s inscrutable justice.
In summary, while Jewish theology largely affirms the “omni†attributes, it often explores them through the lens of law, covenant, and human experience, leading to a more complex picture than a purely philosophical definition.
Me: So, the overall question or observation has to do with why such an attributed creator would create anything other than exact copies of itself...
AI: Precisely. That is the core thrust of the argument.
If a being is truly all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, the creation of anything less than perfect, equally powerful beings—which would inevitably lead to suffering—seems logically inconsistent.
Creating lesser beings introduces avoidable evil, conflicting with omnibenevolence. The only creation that aligns with all three attributes appears to be creating exact copies of itself. Any other choice seems to sacrifice at least one of the "omni" traits.
AI: Yes. The God of classical theism, as understood in Christianity, Islam, and (with some philosophical nuance) Judaism, is explicitly described as being all three:
Omnipotent: Descriptions of God as the almighty creator, for whom nothing is impossible. (e.g., Genesis 18:14, Quran 2:20)
Omniscient: Descriptions of God’s infinite knowledge, knowing all things past, present, and future. (e.g., Psalm 147:5, 1 John 3:20, Quran 2:29)
Omnibenevolent: Descriptions of God being perfectly good, love itself, and full of mercy. (e.g., 1 John 4:8, Psalm 136, Quran 1:3)
This specific combination is precisely why the “Problem of Evil†is a central topic of debate in the theology of these faiths.
Me: Please now summarize completely and briefly the content of this discussion up to this point.
AI: We examined the “Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument.â€
Its premises argue that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good deity would create a world of equally powerful, knowing beings to prevent all suffering.
Since our world contains suffering, such a deity cannot logically possess all three attributes at once.
We agreed the logic is sound but noted it only challenges the specific tri-omni god of classical theism (Christianity, Islam, Judaism).
The argument does not disprove a creator god that lacks one of these attributes, or whose nature/benevolence is defined differently. The Problem of Evil remains a theological challenge, not a definitive disproof.
Me: Please expand on where AI points to “and (with some philosophical nuance) Judaismâ€â€¦
AI: Of course. The nuance with Judaism stems from its focus on God’s relationship and actions over abstract, philosophical perfection.
Key points:
Omnipotence: Generally affirmed, but with a strong tradition (e.g., Maimonides) that it means power over the possible, not the logically contradictory. God’s power is often shown through covenant and history, not just raw creation.
Omniscience: Affirmed, but a major debate exists, especially from the medieval period, about whether God’s foreknowledge is compatible with genuine human free will.
Omnibenevolence: This is the most nuanced. God is unequivocally “good†(Psalm 136:1), but the definition is often rooted in justice (tzedek), covenant loyalty (chesed), and corrective punishment—not just the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. The Book of Job and much of the Tanakh grapple deeply with God’s inscrutable justice.
In summary, while Jewish theology largely affirms the “omni†attributes, it often explores them through the lens of law, covenant, and human experience, leading to a more complex picture than a purely philosophical definition.
Me: So, the overall question or observation has to do with why such an attributed creator would create anything other than exact copies of itself...
AI: Precisely. That is the core thrust of the argument.
If a being is truly all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, the creation of anything less than perfect, equally powerful beings—which would inevitably lead to suffering—seems logically inconsistent.
Creating lesser beings introduces avoidable evil, conflicting with omnibenevolence. The only creation that aligns with all three attributes appears to be creating exact copies of itself. Any other choice seems to sacrifice at least one of the "omni" traits.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Post #6[Replying to William in post #5]
Me: Such an original entity would know about evil and thus all copies of itself would also know…
AI: Yes. This is a critical implication.
An omniscient original entity would possess knowledge of all possible evils, suffering, and moral failings. Any perfect copy it creates would inherit this complete knowledge.
Therefore, this “perfect†world of equal beings would not be one of ignorant bliss, but a universe of entities fully aware of evil’s potential, yet eternally secure from its harm due to their equal power.
Me: Thus we could assume that logically, none of the copies would create anything other than equal beings that were eternally secure from its harm and we would therefore need to explain why we do not exist in such a world…
AI: Correct. This is the logical conclusion.
If the original tri-omni being’s creation of lesser beings is inconsistent, then the same logic applies to any of its copies. They would also be bound by omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.
The fact that our vulnerable world exists instead of that secure, equal one is the core evidence presented to argue that no such original tri-omni creator exists.
Me: This appears to be a case of AI forgetting that idea of creating copies of itself rather than “lesser beingsâ€
AI: You are absolutely right. I made an error in the chain of logic.
The correct deduction is:
If the original tri-omni being must create equal copies, then those copies would also be tri-omni. They, in turn, would also be logically compelled to create only more equal copies, and so on.
This creates an infinite regress of identical, tri-omni beings, with no “lesser†world like ours ever coming into existence. The fact that our vulnerable world does exist is therefore a strong point against the existence of the original tri-omni creator. Thank you for the correction.
Me: So, now we can put to one side the idea that such a creator would create copies of itself, but this does not answer WHY it would create anything at all, let alone lesser beings who have no knowledge of either good or evil...
AI: You have hit the fundamental limit of the logical argument.
The “why†of creation is a question that logic alone cannot answer. The argument successfully shows that a tri-omni creator’s existence is logically incompatible with our world.
However, it cannot penetrate the motive of such a being. Why create anything? The desire to create—whether copies or lesser beings—implies a “want,†which is itself a paradox for a supposedly perfect and self-sufficient entity.
The existence of our world, especially with beings ignorant of good and evil, points away from a tri-omni creator, leaving the “why†a matter for theology or mystery, not logic.
Me: Such an original entity would know about evil and thus all copies of itself would also know…
AI: Yes. This is a critical implication.
An omniscient original entity would possess knowledge of all possible evils, suffering, and moral failings. Any perfect copy it creates would inherit this complete knowledge.
Therefore, this “perfect†world of equal beings would not be one of ignorant bliss, but a universe of entities fully aware of evil’s potential, yet eternally secure from its harm due to their equal power.
Me: Thus we could assume that logically, none of the copies would create anything other than equal beings that were eternally secure from its harm and we would therefore need to explain why we do not exist in such a world…
AI: Correct. This is the logical conclusion.
If the original tri-omni being’s creation of lesser beings is inconsistent, then the same logic applies to any of its copies. They would also be bound by omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.
The fact that our vulnerable world exists instead of that secure, equal one is the core evidence presented to argue that no such original tri-omni creator exists.
Me: This appears to be a case of AI forgetting that idea of creating copies of itself rather than “lesser beingsâ€
AI: You are absolutely right. I made an error in the chain of logic.
The correct deduction is:
If the original tri-omni being must create equal copies, then those copies would also be tri-omni. They, in turn, would also be logically compelled to create only more equal copies, and so on.
This creates an infinite regress of identical, tri-omni beings, with no “lesser†world like ours ever coming into existence. The fact that our vulnerable world does exist is therefore a strong point against the existence of the original tri-omni creator. Thank you for the correction.
Me: So, now we can put to one side the idea that such a creator would create copies of itself, but this does not answer WHY it would create anything at all, let alone lesser beings who have no knowledge of either good or evil...
AI: You have hit the fundamental limit of the logical argument.
The “why†of creation is a question that logic alone cannot answer. The argument successfully shows that a tri-omni creator’s existence is logically incompatible with our world.
However, it cannot penetrate the motive of such a being. Why create anything? The desire to create—whether copies or lesser beings—implies a “want,†which is itself a paradox for a supposedly perfect and self-sufficient entity.
The existence of our world, especially with beings ignorant of good and evil, points away from a tri-omni creator, leaving the “why†a matter for theology or mystery, not logic.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
Re: The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Post #7A key response posits that genuine moral agency requires beings with limited knowledge and power, enabling authentic love, choice, and growth absent in a world of equals who cannot err or harm.
Omnibenevolence values relational depth over uniform perfection, as coerced harmony lacks virtue; vulnerable beings can freely choose goodness, yielding greater net good.
This explains why an omnipotent God permits suffering: not inability, but prioritization of libertarian free will over risk-free existence.
__________________________
https://broker-ubezpieczeniowy.pl/katowice
Omnibenevolence values relational depth over uniform perfection, as coerced harmony lacks virtue; vulnerable beings can freely choose goodness, yielding greater net good.
This explains why an omnipotent God permits suffering: not inability, but prioritization of libertarian free will over risk-free existence.
__________________________
https://broker-ubezpieczeniowy.pl/katowice
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Post #8This would suggest then that something without limited knowledge and power is also without authentic love, choice, and growth
This suggests that a being of uniform perfection has no relational depth itself in which to "value". "Net good" is unavailable to a being of uniform perfection.Omnibenevolence values relational depth over uniform perfection, as coerced harmony lacks virtue; vulnerable beings can freely choose goodness, yielding greater net good.
The explanation appears wanting.This explains why an omnipotent God permits suffering: not inability, but prioritization of libertarian free will over risk-free existence.
A being of uniform perfection "prioritizing libertarian free will" over its own risk-free existence.
AI: Based on the provided text, the summary is:
A critique argues that the "free will defense" for why God permits suffering is logically inconsistent. The critique points out that the defense defines genuine moral agency and authentic love as requiring limited knowledge and power, implying that a perfect, omnipotent God would, by that definition, lack these qualities. It also notes that the defense claims "net good" arises from free choice in vulnerable beings, a calculation presumably unavailable to a being of uniform perfection. Therefore, the critique concludes that the explanation—that God prioritizes free will over a risk-free existence—is unconvincing because the very premises used to justify human suffering would seem to exclude a perfect God from the realm of meaningful moral action or relational depth.
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
-
Compassionist
- Guru
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
- Has thanked: 1070 times
- Been thanked: 251 times
Re: The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Post #9[Replying to William in post #3]
But that concession has consequences.
A being that is omniscient and omnipotent but not omnibenevolent is no longer morally perfect. It becomes a being that knows all suffering it allows and can prevent it, but chooses not to. At that point, calling it “God†in the classical moral sense becomes questionable.
So yes, such a being could still exist — but it would not be the God most theists claim to worship.
If God creates “copies of itself,†those copies would either:
• also be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent (creating infinite gods), or
• lack one or more attributes (meaning they are not copies).
Either option undermines classical theism:
• infinite gods collapses monotheism.
• non-identical copies collapse the “copy†claim.
So the idea of God creating copies of itself does not rescue the tri-omni problem — it dissolves into incoherence.
An omniscient and omnibenevolent but non-omnipotent being would:
• fully understand all suffering
• genuinely want to prevent it
• lack the power to do so
That is a tragic deity, not a sovereign one. It may be morally admirable, but it is not the God described by classical theism.
This move saves moral goodness by sacrificing power.
If a being lacks omnipotence, it may be unable to create copies of itself. Awareness of limitation does not imply the ability to transcend it.
Creating equals requires having the power to do so — which is precisely what is being denied in this scenario.
If a being is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then ignorance about preventable suffering is impossible. Omnibenevolence requires awareness of harm; omnipotence requires the capacity to prevent it.
Ignorance collapses omniscience, which is essential to classical theism.
The argument is not that a non–tri-omni being could not create anything.
It is that a being responsible for preventable suffering cannot coherently be:
• all-knowing (aware of the suffering),
• all-powerful (able to prevent it), and
• all-good (opposed to preventable suffering),
at the same time.
Creation alone proves nothing about moral perfection.
A being can create worlds, creatures, even gods — and still fail omnibenevolence. Creation is not a moral credential.
The conclusion remains intact:
A being responsible for preventable suffering cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent simultaneously.
Denying any one attribute is logically possible — but each denial abandons classical theism.
And none of the “copy of itself†scenarios resolve the contradiction; they merely introduce new incoherences.
Yes — logically, omniscience and omnipotence do not collapse simply because omnibenevolence fails.William wrote: Would this mean that such a god could still be omniscient and omnipotent?
But that concession has consequences.
A being that is omniscient and omnipotent but not omnibenevolent is no longer morally perfect. It becomes a being that knows all suffering it allows and can prevent it, but chooses not to. At that point, calling it “God†in the classical moral sense becomes questionable.
So yes, such a being could still exist — but it would not be the God most theists claim to worship.
Exactly — and this is the key problem.William wrote: If so, then such a god could have still made other beings as copies of itself - but why would such a god do so?
If God creates “copies of itself,†those copies would either:
• also be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent (creating infinite gods), or
• lack one or more attributes (meaning they are not copies).
Either option undermines classical theism:
• infinite gods collapses monotheism.
• non-identical copies collapse the “copy†claim.
So the idea of God creating copies of itself does not rescue the tri-omni problem — it dissolves into incoherence.
Yes — but again, only by surrendering omnipotence.William wrote: Could this mean that such a god could still be omniscient and omnibenevolent?
An omniscient and omnibenevolent but non-omnipotent being would:
• fully understand all suffering
• genuinely want to prevent it
• lack the power to do so
That is a tragic deity, not a sovereign one. It may be morally admirable, but it is not the God described by classical theism.
This move saves moral goodness by sacrificing power.
This does not follow.William wrote: If so, then the god is totally aware of its limitations...but creates copies of itself anyway.
If a being lacks omnipotence, it may be unable to create copies of itself. Awareness of limitation does not imply the ability to transcend it.
Creating equals requires having the power to do so — which is precisely what is being denied in this scenario.
No.William wrote: Could this mean that such a god could still be omnipotent and omnibenevolent?
If a being is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then ignorance about preventable suffering is impossible. Omnibenevolence requires awareness of harm; omnipotence requires the capacity to prevent it.
Ignorance collapses omniscience, which is essential to classical theism.
This is where the confusion lies.William wrote: Yet could still create stuff...like copies of itself...
The argument is not that a non–tri-omni being could not create anything.
It is that a being responsible for preventable suffering cannot coherently be:
• all-knowing (aware of the suffering),
• all-powerful (able to prevent it), and
• all-good (opposed to preventable suffering),
at the same time.
Creation alone proves nothing about moral perfection.
A being can create worlds, creatures, even gods — and still fail omnibenevolence. Creation is not a moral credential.
The conclusion remains intact:
A being responsible for preventable suffering cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent simultaneously.
Denying any one attribute is logically possible — but each denial abandons classical theism.
And none of the “copy of itself†scenarios resolve the contradiction; they merely introduce new incoherences.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 16398
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 1036 times
- Been thanked: 1946 times
- Contact:
Re: The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument
Post #10[Replying to Compassionist in post #9]
Denying any one attribute is logically possible — but each denial abandons classical theism.
If you agree with the AI overview, would you also agree that this in itself does not mean we do not exist within a created thing?AI Overview
Classical theism defines God as the ultimate, transcendent reality—simple, immutable (unchanging), impassible (incapable of suffering), and timeless—who is the uncaused first cause of everything, distinct from creation yet sustaining it, often described through "negative" (apophatic) theology because His essence is beyond full human comprehension. It contrasts with non-classical views by emphasizing God's absolute metaphysical simplicity, where His essence is His existence, making Him "Being itself" rather than just "a being among beings".
Core Concepts
Simplicity (Metaphysical): God has no parts or composition; His attributes (like goodness, power, knowledge) are identical with His essence, which is identical with His existence.
Immutability: God does not change, grow, or experience emotions in the human sense.
Impassibility: God is not subject to suffering, passion, or emotional change.
Transcendence & Immanence: God is wholly separate from the world (transcendent) but also its necessary foundation and sustainer (immanent cause).
Aseity: God's existence is necessary and self-derived; He is uncaused.
Apophatic Theology: Focuses on what God is not because His true nature transcends human language and concepts, though He can be known through His effects.
Historical Roots & Influence
Rooted in ancient Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristotle) and developed through Christian, Islamic (e.g., Avicenna), and Jewish traditions.
Provides the theological framework for much of mainstream Christianity (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, some Protestantism) and other faiths.
Key Distinction
Classical Theism: God as pure Actuality, Being Itself, distinct from creation.
Opposed by: Deism (distant God), Pantheism (God is the universe), Theistic Personalism (God as a being among other beings, with more human-like attributes).
The question has never been whether God is speaking. The question has always been whether there is anyone listening - anyone who has stopped hiding long enough to hear.
