# Omni-benevolent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346 "2011-02-14T19:40:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/21 "2011-02-15T07:16:26Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Please see my earlier post. > > Also, **Voyager** , your argument is like saying that if you love your wife, you can’t choose to be nice to her, because if you really love her, it’s not a choice. No, that is not a part of the definition. What is: If I am a non-smoker, I can’t smoke and still be a non-smoker. If you define God as a being which is tri-omni, then you have the problem. It is not at all a problem for gods which are not tri-omni. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/22 "2011-02-15T07:20:01Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Arguably, he knows everything that can be known, but if the future hasn’t happened yet (even for God) and isn’t predetermined then there’s no contradiction in saying that he can’t know it. Yelling at Christians, “But that’s not omniscience! You’re moving the goalposts!” is just silly. > > Omni-benevolent is the least biblical of the three. We are told in the NT that “God is love,” but we are also given long lists throughout the Bible of people and things God hates. What exactly “God is love” means, or even can mean, is not at all clear, but it’s almost certainly best not to treat it as a rigorous philosophical definition, since that’s almost certainly not how it was meant. > > Of course, the argument from evil doesn’t actually require that God be omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent, that’s just its strongest form. But it works nearly as well against a God who’s only slightly more powerful, knowledgeable and nice than your average Joe. Several “proofs” of God involve God being the greatest that there is and can be. Your argument is with those who believe in this kind of god. The god in the Torah is not even close to being omnibenevolent by most people’s definition, though you hear defenses of all kinds of things - like it was ok for God to kill babies during the Flood because they would have grown up bad and unhappy. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/23 "2011-02-15T07:29:55Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I firmly dislike the omni-whatever-ent terminology, because it just lends itself to the sort of verbal paradox mentioned above. Rather, I prefer to describe God as _ **self-limiting** _, i.e., that there is nothing beyond Him constraining Him. Because He is faithful to His word, He will do what He has promised to do. He constrains Himself; nothing else constrains Him. Then this unconstrained God lets all sorts of evils, human and natural, into the world. Kind of a rat, eh? > [@](#): > > On a couple of other points, I think that the Bible records, not an inconsistent God, but humanity’s evolving understanding of Him. The tribal god who defends the Iszraelites against the Amalekites whom He hates, eventually becomes the God who loves all mankind. (And of course there are going to be some instances of “the good guys are going to get their just desserts,and the bad guys are gonna get tortured eternally.”) And of course all this is conditioned on a presumption of the Christian God’s existence and general character. God certainly matured morally throughout the Bible. If the early stories are all lies, and God’s morality matches human morality as it matured, this makes perfect sense. If God actually did those things, then it doesn’t. If people did bad things supposedly by God’s command, and they were lying, why not lie about good things supposedly do by God’s command. If God were inspiring them, how did they get it wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/24 "2011-02-15T08:05:54Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > Maybe you need to read what you wrote. > > If the god doesn’t know what will happen then the god is subject to the randomness or other laws of nature, therefore it’s not a god. > > Circumstantial qualifications of gods, like the ones you describe, are even more irrational than claims of omniscience. What is your cite for this? Have you spent years observing gods in their natural habitat and found this to be true? Have you received divine revelation from God about what his goddiness comprises? Is there any dictionary anywhere that defines “god” this way? It certainly doesn’t match the beliefs of any of the hundreds of polytheistic cultures I’ve read about, nor does it jibe with the Bible, with the Jewish theology of which I’m aware, or much Christian theology. > [@FriarTed](#): > > Hebrew- Shaddai (literally “Strong-Chested” or “Full-Breasted” as in full of milk) > also Sabaoth (“Of Armies”- as in God is Lord over the Armies, the Heavenly Host, the Powers of Creation) > > I don’t have my Septuagint handy but Revelation in Ch 12 has Pantokrator (“Ruler over All”?) for Omnipotent. Thanks! I knew that once, I really did! I’ve always thought “almighty” for Shaddai was a particularly iffy translation. It’s pretty obvious newer translations keep it because no one wants the bad publicity for being the person who God’s omnipotence out of the Bible. > [@Voyager](#): > > No, that is not a part of the definition. What is: If I am a non-smoker, I can’t smoke and still be a non-smoker. If you define God as a being which is tri-omni, then you have the problem. It is not at all a problem for gods which are not tri-omni. Your claim is that being all-loving and all-powerful are mutually exclusive. I don’t see how it matters if those are “part of the definition” of God, or not. My whole point in this thread, however, has been that God is _not_ typically defined that way by Scripture or tradition. Besides, most theologians would argue that God has the _ability_ to do evil, and his omnibenevolence consists in him choosing to do good. You can argue that if he’s really, REALLY omnibenevolent right down to his inner essence, then he _couldn’t_ choose to be evil, but that’s not how we talk about ordinary love and free will, and there is no reason to think anyone who believes in God means it that way. If you really, REALLY love someone, to the point that it defines who you are, it’s not nonsensical to say that you honestly couldn’t intend to cause them harm, but we don’t usually take than to be a limit on your ability or free will, just a reflection of your character. > [@Voyager](#): > > Several “proofs” of God involve God being the greatest that there is and can be. Your argument is with those who believe in this kind of god. But my point is that “the greatest that there is or can be” isn’t enough for some people. It doesn’t include doing things that are self-contradictory or mere nonsense, but some people say “That’s not real omnipotence, then!” If the future isn’t knowable in the way that the past is because there not yet facts or truths to be known about it yet, then “knowing the future” is just as meaningless as “God creating a rock so heavy he can’t lift it,” but you still get people claiming that that’s not enough. I’m just guessing, but I don’t think Anslem would have much to talk about with these people. > [@Voyager](#): > > The god in the Torah is not even close to being omnibenevolent by most people’s definition, though you hear defenses of all kinds of things - like it was ok for God to kill babies during the Flood because they would have grown up bad and unhappy. He’s not much closer to omniscient or omnipotent by most people’s definitions, either. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/25 "2011-02-15T08:17:47Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > The takes six days to create the universe and _needs to rest_. Trivial nitpick or clarification: does the bible say he needed to rest or just that he did? I thought it was the latter. I often rest because I like to not because I have to. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/26 "2011-02-15T08:29:37Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > What is your cite for this? Have you spent years observing gods in their natural habitat and found this to be true? Have you received divine revelation from God about what his goddiness comprises? Is there any dictionary anywhere that defines “god” this way? It certainly doesn’t match the beliefs of any of the hundreds of polytheistic cultures I’ve read about, nor does it jibe with the Bible, with the Jewish theology of which I’m aware, or much Christian theology. There are no gods. My claim is consistent with universal laws. Yours isn’t. Belief is a human need to be emotionally gratified. It’s irrelevant by definition. Theists are either ignorant louts, or intentionally anti-social mentally dysfunctional individuals needing treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/27 "2011-02-15T09:40:25Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > There are no gods. > > My claim is consistent with universal laws. Yours isn’t. > > Belief is a human need to be emotionally gratified. It’s irrelevant by definition. Theists are either ignorant louts, or intentionally anti-social mentally dysfunctional individuals needing treatment. Huh? You realize I’m an atheist, right? I did mention that in my first post. Given that there are no gods, how can there be a universal law that they must know the future perfectly? ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/28 "2011-02-15T09:43:58Z")
> [@Lord\_Ashtar](#): > > Are you wise and good enough to choose of your own free will not to drive your car through the neighborhood hitting every person you see like you’re playing Grand Theft Auto? I’m wise enough not to play trivial crap like that. I much prefer trivial crap like WoW. But what this has to do with the matter at hand is beyond my wisdom, I concede. ---
**Author:** ![JimNightshade](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jimnightshade/32/3354_2.png) [@JimNightshade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimNightshade)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/29 "2011-02-15T10:38:02Z")
Thanks everyone. If I understand correctly then, the whole tri-omni thing is an interpretation from different parts of the Bible and nowhere is it explicitly stated. Is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![KellyCriterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b3f665/32.png) [@KellyCriterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyCriterion)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/30 "2011-02-15T10:49:05Z")
> [@JimNightshade](#): > > Thanks everyone. > > If I understand correctly then, the whole tri-omni thing is an interpretation from different parts of the Bible and nowhere is it explicitly stated. Is that correct? **Jim** , there’s been nearly 30 posts so far in this thread! You mean no one has yet answered your original question?! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/31 "2011-02-15T14:55:10Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > I’m wise enough not to play trivial crap like that. I much prefer trivial crap like WoW. But what this has to do with the matter at hand is beyond my wisdom, I concede. I was simply suggesting that you perhaps God did make “wise and good enough to choose of [your] own free will not to commit evil” after all. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/32 "2011-02-15T17:42:19Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Your claim is that being all-loving and all-powerful are mutually exclusive. I don’t see how it matters if those are “part of the definition” of God, or not. My whole point in this thread, however, has been that God is _not_ typically defined that way by Scripture or tradition. > > Besides, most theologians would argue that God has the _ability_ to do evil, and his omnibenevolence consists in him choosing to do good. You can argue that if he’s really, REALLY omnibenevolent right down to his inner essence, then he _couldn’t_ choose to be evil, but that’s not how we talk about ordinary love and free will, and there is no reason to think anyone who believes in God means it that way. If you really, REALLY love someone, to the point that it defines who you are, it’s not nonsensical to say that you honestly couldn’t intend to cause them harm, but we don’t usually take than to be a limit on your ability or free will, just a reflection of your character. Let’s look at it this way. Every action God takes would add to or diminish the goodness of the world in some sense. When God chooses an action, he has a wide variety of choices, or does if he is not omnibenevolent. If he is omnibenevolent, he must choose the action which maximizes goodness. From omniscience he knows what that is. If you think he will always choose the right action, you must not believe in free will. God clearly has free will. If this counts as free will, God can design our choices so that we always choose to do good. But it doesn’t matter, since God cannot choose to do anything but the maximally good action without giving up omnibenevolence. If this is omnipotence to you, you have an odd definition of it, since God is no more than a puppet here. > [@](#): > > But my point is that “the greatest that there is or can be” isn’t enough for some people. It doesn’t include doing things that are self-contradictory or mere nonsense, but some people say “That’s not real omnipotence, then!” If the future isn’t knowable in the way that the past is because there not yet facts or truths to be known about it yet, then “knowing the future” is just as meaningless as “God creating a rock so heavy he can’t lift it,” but you still get people claiming that that’s not enough. That so called paradox fails because it is in a single dimension, that of omnipotence, and it makes perfect sense that no being can exist who can make a rock too big for it to lift. But for a tri-omni god, you can have a being, who is not omnibenevolent, who can do actions that God cannot. Thus, God is not the greatest, and is not God. The external constraint is what is different here. > [@](#): > > He’s not much closer to omniscient or omnipotent by most people’s definitions, either. Now that is quite true. He has a problem with iron chariots, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/33 "2011-02-15T17:44:32Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Trivial nitpick or clarification: does the bible say he needed to rest or just that he did? I thought it was the latter. I often rest because I like to not because I have to. In Hebrew School we got taught that he rested to set an example for humans who do need to rest, and who must under the law. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/34 "2011-02-15T23:14:51Z")
But omnibenevolent doesn’t mean that he _has_ to perform the action that leads to the greatest good. It means he _wants to_. But always wanting to do good isn’t a limitation on your power, it’s a reflection of your character. In fact, a constant theme in discussions of free will is that one must have the option of doing evil in order to do good. So arguably omnibenevolence would _require_ that God have the option of not choosing what is good. I mean, I think the whole thing is bullshit anyway, and I also think that free will is a poorly defined concept that leads to all sorts of logical inconsistency. But I think it is a bit silly to pretend that you can disprove God’s existence by arguing about omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Most believers mean by that (as you said) that God is as good and powerful (and knowledgeable) _as possible_. Since that’s all they really mean, it’s not much of an argument to say that God isn’t omnipotent because he can’t choose to want something other than what he wants, if that’s logically impossible anyway. Most Christians are ok with a god who can do anything he wants, but can only want what is good and loving. It’s only a problem when too-clever-for-our-own-good atheists like you and me start playing gotcha with it, saying “but then he’s not a _real_ god!” Like it matters to us anyway! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/35 "2011-02-15T23:34:12Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > But omnibenevolent doesn’t mean that he _has_ to perform the action that leads to the greatest good. It means he _wants to_. But always wanting to do good isn’t a limitation on your power, it’s a reflection of your character. In fact, a constant theme in discussions of free will is that one must have the option of doing evil in order to do good. So arguably omnibenevolence would _require_ that God have the option of not choosing what is good. Oh, please, you are making God sound like Curious George. “God wanted to be good, but the idea of flooding the world was just too interesting.” In any case, we have no idea of what God wants or what God thinks - benevolence depends on what God actually does. But you are confusing omnipotence with omnibenevolence. I agree that an omnipotent being must be able to do evil as well as good. An omnibenevolent one cannot do evil. (Unless it is necessary in some logical sense.) That is a splendid short description of the inherent contradiction. > [@](#): > > I mean, I think the whole thing is bullshit anyway, and I also think that free will is a poorly defined concept that leads to all sorts of logical inconsistency. But I think it is a bit silly to pretend that you can disprove God’s existence by arguing about omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Most believers mean by that (as you said) that God is as good and powerful (and knowledgeable) _as possible_. Since that’s all they really mean, it’s not much of an argument to say that God isn’t omnipotent because he can’t choose to want something other than what he wants, if that’s logically impossible anyway. Most Christians are ok with a god who can do anything he wants, but can only want what is good and loving. It’s only a problem when too-clever-for-our-own-good atheists like you and me start playing gotcha with it, saying “but then he’s not a _real_ god!” Like it matters to us anyway! I avoid free will discussions, because it all comes down to a definition of free will. A discussion of God’s free will would be even worse. A God without free will wouldn’t be God, as you imply. so it gets very confusing. The tri-omni problem just shows that it is easy to play with words without thinking through the consequences. Whoever defined God to be tri-omni screwed the pooch. The Greeks had no such problems. Their gods were hardly omnibenevolent, and the fact that they took opposing sides in the Trojan War showed they weren’t omniscient. As for your other point, we’re back to “pick two” again. What does maximally kind of omnipotent/kind of omnibenevolent mean? How do you logically decide if a God who is truly omnipotent and not omnibenevolent iss more or less powerful than the God who is kind of both? The only actual solution, as I think you agree, is that there is no such god, and the problem goes away. It matters in the sense that we can prove that a certain class of god does not exist, using similar methods employed by theologians to incorrectly prove he does exist. We’re then reduced to looking for evidence of a god, and we’ve been over that already. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/36 "2011-02-15T23:41:22Z")
> [@Lord\_Ashtar](#): > > I was simply suggesting that you perhaps God did make “wise and good enough to choose of [your] own free will not to commit evil” after all. I’m trying to parse this sentence and not entirely succeeding. But if you are suggesting that, since I [in your example] have shown wisdom on one occasion, there is no general problem of evil to answer, then no. Evil undoubtedly occurs, and people undoubtedly make evil choices. Demonstrably then God has failed to equip all of his people to always spurn the evil choice and make the good choice, despite being able to have done so, had he so chosen. ---
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/37 "2011-02-16T00:44:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I agree that an omnipotent being must be able to do evil as well as good. An omnibenevolent one cannot do evil. What’s do you mean by “cannot”? He can not do evil and still be omnibenevolent, but that doesn’t mean he is without the power to do evil, which is all that is necessary to be omnipotent. He has the power to do anything including evil, which makes him omnipotent. If He is all good, that means He must be all good by choice to fulfill the requirement of being omnipotent. No contradiction here. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/38 "2011-02-16T01:26:14Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Oh, please, you are making God sound like Curious George. “God wanted to be good, but the idea of flooding the world was just too interesting.” In any case, we have no idea of what God wants or what God thinks - benevolence depends on what God actually does. I have no idea what you’re talking about with the Curious George thing. I’ve already said that the Bible doesn’t describe a god who is omni-anything. > [@](#): > > But you are confusing omnipotence with omnibenevolence. I agree that an omnipotent being must be able to do evil as well as good. An omnibenevolent one cannot do evil. (Unless it is necessary in some logical sense.) That is a splendid short description of the inherent contradiction. But that is NOT what “omnibenevolence” means. That might be what YOU mean when you say it, but I spent three years studying religion in grad school, and I don’t think I ever heard anyone claiming that God’s goodness means he _can’t_ do evil. It means he _doesn’t_. > [@](#): > > I avoid free will discussions, because it all comes down to a definition of free will. A discussion of God’s free will would be even worse. A God without free will wouldn’t be God, as you imply. so it gets very confusing. > The tri-omni problem just shows that it is easy to play with words without thinking through the consequences. Whoever defined God to be tri-omni screwed the pooch. The Greeks had no such problems. Their gods were hardly omnibenevolent, and the fact that they took opposing sides in the Trojan War showed they weren’t omniscient. > As for your other point, we’re back to “pick two” again. What does maximally kind of omnipotent/kind of omnibenevolent mean? How do you logically decide if a God who is truly omnipotent and not omnibenevolent iss more or less powerful than the God who is kind of both? > The only actual solution, as I think you agree, is that there is no such god, and the problem goes away. It matters in the sense that we can prove that a certain class of god does not exist, using similar methods employed by theologians to incorrectly prove he does exist. We’re then reduced to looking for evidence of a god, and we’ve been over that already. But the only class of god you’ve disproven is one no one believes in anyway. Sure, it _looks_ like you’ve disproven the Christian God, because Christians do talk about God in ways that suggest tri-omni, and most won’t object to the tri-omni characterization. But in fact, you’re using tri-omni to mean things that–when you actually engage believers in discussion–you find they never meant. And even if there are some who did mean that because they’d never really thought about it before NO ONE except atheists _defines_ God that way. So the most you’ll get from a believer who actually follows your semantic twists is “I guess tri-omni isn’t a very good description of God after all.” All of this, when, as you point out, there’s a much simpler and more honest way: look at the evidence. It won’t always convince people, but at least the ones who are convinced will be convinced for the right reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/39 "2011-02-16T01:42:00Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > And even if there are some who did mean that because they’d never really thought about it before NO ONE except atheists _defines_ God that way. So the most you’ll get from a believer who actually follows your semantic twists is “I guess tri-omni isn’t a very good description of God after all.” I tried to ask them directly for a description-[wasn’t much help at all.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=596002) ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/40 "2011-02-16T02:22:01Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > And even if there are some who did mean that because they’d never really thought about it before NO ONE except atheists _defines_ God that way. So the most you’ll get from a believer who actually follows your semantic twists is “I guess tri-omni isn’t a very good description of God after all.” The tri-omni god is hardly the product of the imagination of atheists. It may not be in the Bible, but it wasn’t dreamed up by smartass non-believers, it was invented (or I suppose some would say, extrapolated from Scripture and natural reason) by Christian theologians. The [_Catholic Encyclopedia_](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/) (1917 edition) is a rather old-fashioned work, now available on-line. Given its publication date, it would be a mistake to trot out everything in it and say “Aha! Here is the official position of the Catholic Church in 2011!” But it can give a good view of classical Christian theology, and here are some of the things it has to say on the topic of [God’s omniscience](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IID1): > [@](#): > > That God is omniscient or possesses the most perfect knowledge of all things, follows from His infinite perfection. In the first place He knows and comprehends Himself fully and adequately, and in the next place He knows all created objects and comprehends their finite and contingent mode of being. Hence He knows them individually or singularly in their finite multiplicity, knows everything possible as well as actual; knows what is bad as well as what is good. (So be good for goodness sake…) > [@](#): > > That God knows infallibly and from eternity what, for example, a certain man, in the exercise of free will, will do or actually does in any given circumstances, and what he might or would actually have done in different circumstances is beyond doubt — being a corollary from the eternal actuality of Divine knowledge. So to speak, God has not to wait on the contingent and temporal event of the man’s free choice to know what the latter’s action will be; He knows it from eternity. But the difficulty is: how, from our finite point of view, to interpret and explain the mysterious manner of God’s knowledge of such events without at the same time sacrificing the free will of the creature. On the problem of [evil](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm): > [@](#): > > If God is all-benevolent, why did He cause or permit suffering? If He is all-Powerful, He can be under no necessity of creating or permitting it; and on the other hand, if He is under any such necessity, He cannot be all-powerful. Again, if God is absolutely good, and also omnipotent, how can He permit the existence of moral evil? The tri-omni God was the invention of Christian theologians, and it’s not like they aren’t aware of the problems and paradoxes posed by their definition. (Of course they go on to give their answers to the problems posed, however unconvincing I may find them to be.) These quotations are from a Catholic point of view, but I don’t believe there would be any particular difference between Catholic theology and that of mainstream, classical Protestant theology of various denominations on these particular points. Of course, if you’re just talking to some guy who believes in a vaguely Christian-flavored Higher Power, none of this may be relevant. If you’re talking to a Christian theologian, a clergyman, or someone who is trying to defend the stated beliefs of any of the main Christian denominations, it’s perfectly proper to bring this stuff up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346.md?page=3)