The problem with this is that a few incarnations of God punish unbelievers. If God was actively planting seeds that would mean God wasn’t omnibenevolent-right?
In addition, God could just implant the drive to accomplish great things just as easily as the seeds of doubt (I would imagine), so why bother with planting seeds of doubt that will only lead to damnation of his creations?
But if God were the being that ultimately defines what is good and what is evil, and
whatever that God does is good, then God will always be omnibenevolent.
See Book of Job. 
i’m sorry, but this seems like quite the cop out. perhaps it makes sense to define the actions of an omnipotent (if such a being can even “act” as such) and omnibenevolent (by definition) being as being the definition of good, but if he’s not going to tell us what good is, how are we expected to behave that way? in addition, going that route renders bookloads of discussion entirely meaningless, including this one, and i’m not yet willing to do that. in my book, punishing someone for something you did is not good, and i’d prefer to keep with that definition, rather than define away the whole debate.
an omnipotent being could accomplish the same end without the sadistic torture of an innocent man like job. do you deny that?
So if God said that raping and killing little children was good, then it would be?
Seems sort of arbitrary to me, almost as though it takes away all meaning from the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
I’ve read it; how does it relate to my point about God’s omnipotence?