# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/41 "2011-02-16T02:28:17Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > The tri-omni god is hardly the product of the imagination of atheists. In addition to omnipotence and omnibenevolence being implied in any Argument from Ignorance with regards to theodicy. In other words, the Mysterious Ways argument. Waving away the existence of evil by saying “God has a plan but He works in Mysterious Ways”, implies that God can and does have a solution to everything, and will implement the best solution possible. If you ask “hey, it would be less evil if all those children didn’t have to die of cancer”, the response is not “hey, sometimes God just can’t fight genetics,” or “hey, sometimes God is sort of a dick”, but it’s always “since it happened, it is because God willed it, and since God did it, it is ultimately in service of the best good”. ---
**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, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/42 "2011-02-16T03:39:33Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > 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): > > (So be good for goodness sake…) > > On the problem of [evil](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm): > > 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. The tri-omni God wasn’t invented by atheists, that’s true, but it is mostly brought up by them. The Protestant theologians I mostly studied largely rejected that kind of language because it leads to semantic confusion like this thread. Catholic theology is still much more rooted in Aquinian scholasticism, but I believe they’ve moved in more in less the same direction, towards treating the divine as the object of personal encounters and experiences, not the subject of algebraic propositions. Many theologians do believe that God’s omniscience includes the future. As far as I know, that is probably still Catholic doctrine. But some theologians disagree. Some argue, as I’ve presented, that the future (especially where free will plays a part) isn’t subject to knowledge, and therefore falls outside of what omniscience comprises. My point is that omniscience does not _by definition_ include knowledge of the future. Some theologians think it does, others disagree. You can’t, therefore, argue, “Knowledge of the future is impossible (or incompatible with some other doctrine) therefore God doesn’t exist.” Even if your argument is airtight and convincing, the most you could possibly accomplish by presenting it to the Vatican is to have the Pope say, “Huh, I guess we were wrong about omniscience including the future!” It doesn’t get you any closer to proving God doesn’t exist. Similarly with all the other stuff in this thread. It’s why I try to shift the language in these debates away from “omniscient,” “omnipotent,” etc. and towards ordinary English phrases like “most powerful,” “knowing everything,” etc. Almost every Christian, including theologians, will affirm belief in a god who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but for some reason people like to assume fixed and absolute definitions with specific philosophical implications for those Latin terms and resist any attempt to change them, even when it is clear that those definitions and those philosophical implications are not what the Christians had in mind when they coined the terms. Even when logic shows that they _couldn’t_ (intelligently) have meant those things. Instead of thinking, “Maybe I’ve misunderstood these terms,” many people say, “Ha, gotcha!” So yes, most Christians believe in a God who is most powerful, knows everything, and loves every being. Most Christians will say that their God is tri-omni, and go further to say that “there is nothing God can’t do” and “nothing God doesn’t know,” and even in the same breath say, “God can only do good.” Any Christian with the brains to walk upright and breathe, though, when confronted with “Aha! But if God can only do good then he can’t do everything, can he? God is logically impossible!” will respond not by saying, “Oh no! All my beliefs are wrong!” but by saying, “Let’s talk a bit about what ‘able to do anything’ entails and whether I maybe should have said _will_ only do good.'” On this board, however, some atheist will inevitably say, “Oh no! No backpedling allowed! Your God is impossible and you just don’t want to admit it! Why won’t theists ever debate honestly? Why won’t they define their terms consistently? They _know_ it’s all a big sham, that’s why!” And of course it _is_ all a big sham (or at least large error in reasoning), but the discussion hasn’t actually gotten us any closer to that point, or to anything anyone can agree on. ---
**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 16, 2011, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/43 "2011-02-16T08:07:00Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > 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 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_. Of course that isn’t the definition, it is just a consequence. And I never said do no evil, I said do the minimum amount of evil possible. The typical defense of God’s omnibenevolence is to show that this is the best of all possible worlds I’ve never seen a defense of omnibenevolence talking about God’s wishes. And Curious George always wanted to be good, some attraction got in his way. Sounds like a God who wishes to be good but just isn’t. > [@](#): > > 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. A lot of ink has been spent defending and attacking a God no one believes in then. And if they don’t mean the obvious definition of tri-omni, what do they mean? They tend to retreat when talking to someone pointing out the problems and then are right back to tri-omni defense the next day. > [@](#): > > 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 believe that. We have a big problem getting a definition of God from theists at all. You certainly have run into the people who, when pressed for a definition, say God is indescribable - but the next breath they know exactly what God thinks about our sex lives and abortion. ---
**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 16, 2011, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/44 "2011-02-16T08:11:58Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > 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. We’ve been through this already. Choice is not the issue. If God chooses to make it rain today, he clearly could have chosen not to make it rain also, right? Now, a single omni god clearly does have the power to do evil. So he can choose to do evil. But, if he chooses to stop the rain, he does not violate and part of his definition, but if he chooses to do evil, he violates the omnibenevolent part of his nature. A single omni god cannot actually do everything, but can potentially do everything. A tri-omni god cannot even potentially do everything a single omni god can do without violating a part of his nature. Thus the contradiction. ---
**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 16, 2011, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/45 "2011-02-16T08:17:49Z")
BTW, the title of this thread is about a tri-omni god. I think everyone agrees that if you define away this characteristic of God he is no longer logically impossible in this way, and that gods who are not defined to be tri-omni are not logically impossible. So it sounds like you agree that a tri-omni god is logically impossible, and say that the response is that God is not tri-omni at all. I don’t know enough about current theology to argue, but I know a lot of religious people don’t accept this. ---
**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, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/46 "2011-02-16T08:28:42Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > Almost every Christian, including theologians, will affirm belief in a god who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but for some reason people like to assume fixed and absolute definitions with specific philosophical implications for those Latin terms and resist any attempt to change them, even when it is clear that those definitions and those philosophical implications are not what the Christians had in mind when they coined the terms. Even when logic shows that they _couldn’t_ (intelligently) have meant those things. Instead of thinking, “Maybe I’ve misunderstood these terms,” many people say, “Ha, gotcha!” But that’s the purpose of coming up with fancy Latin terms–to allow for specific, precise definitions. And, from the sources, the Christians at one point meant _exactly_ that omniscience means that God knows all things, past, present and future; that omnipotence means that God is capable of doing all things that are not intrinsically impossible; that omnibenevolence means that God is perfectly good. These are not “misunderstandings”. Again, atheists didn’t come up with this stuff; _Christians_ did–and not random medieval peasants, either; but high-powered theologians. It’s clear they were not unaware of the contradictions and logical paradoxes, but they evidently believed they could somehow talk their way out of them. (There’s a reason smartass atheists invented concepts like the Invisible Pink Unicorn.) When people come up with–and carefully, precisely define–concepts which are inherently contradictory or logically incoherent, it’s perfectly fair and reasonable to follow the implications of their precisely defined philosophical constructs to the point of incoherence or self-contradiction, or in layman’s terms, to say “Ha, gotcha!” Now, (at least some) modern theologians, having been succesfullly “gotacha-ed” by too damn many smartass atheists (and no longer having the option of just having said smartasses threatened with burning at the stake) may have re-defined their terms, which is all well and good (though one hopes they would have the grace to admit that they _are_ re-defining things: “Those earlier conceptions were in error, but now we believe X, for reasons Y and Z”). ---
**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, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/47 "2011-02-16T14:39:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We’ve been through this already. Choice is not the issue. If God chooses to make it rain today, he clearly could have chosen not to make it rain also, right? Now, a single omni god clearly does have the power to do evil. So he can choose to do evil. But, if he chooses to stop the rain, he does not violate and part of his definition, but if he chooses to do evil, he violates the omnibenevolent part of his nature. > A single omni god cannot actually do everything, but can potentially do everything. A tri-omni god cannot even potentially do everything a single omni god can do without violating a part of his nature. Thus the contradiction. Nothing you just wrote rebuts my post and I wasn’t talking about a tri-omni god; I was talking about your claim that a god can’t be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Choice is the issue. I can be a vegetarian and have the power to eat any food I like. God can be all good and have the power to do anything including evil, making him omnipotent. ---
**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 16, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/48 "2011-02-16T17:47:54Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > Nothing you just wrote rebuts my post and I wasn’t talking about a tri-omni god; I was talking about your claim that a god can’t be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Choice is the issue. I can be a vegetarian and have the power to eat any food I like. God can be all good and have the power to do anything including evil, making him omnipotent. I already mentioned above why omniscience is required for omnibenevolence - otherwise, how can God decide what action maximizes the good. So you can’t have bi-omni in this sense without tri-omni. (You can have bi-omni in the sense of omnipotence and omniscience, thought that has its own problems. I don’t know about omnibenevolence and omniscience without omnipotence. That would be God doing the best he can, but does not require the world to be the best possible. Interesting, but most people want God to be omnipotent.) If by vegetarian you mean someone who never eats meat, then the vegetarian has the choice to eat meat, but the moment he does he is no longer a vegetarian. If your require vegetarianism, then you restrict the effective choice. Unless you consider someone munching a Big Mac a vegetarian because he really wants to only eat vegetables that is. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/49 "2011-02-16T17:55:01Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If by vegetarian you mean someone who never eats meat, then the vegetarian has the choice to eat meat, but the moment he does he is no longer a vegetarian. If your require vegetarianism, then you restrict the effective choice. I know of no theists that claim God is required to be omnibenevolent, only that he is by choice. Same as my vegetarian analogy. ---
**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, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/50 "2011-02-16T18:15:29Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > I know of no theists that claim God is required to be omnibenevolent, only that he is by choice. Same as my vegetarian analogy. Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2011, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/51 "2011-02-17T15:44:41Z")
Can God make free choices? Can God commit evil acts? It seems to me that if God can do anything (logical possible), then he can create beings who only freely do the good (as someone else stated). If he can’t, that’s a problem. It also calls into question why he would create beings that could commit evil. Is it for a “greater” good? If that’s the case then it suggests that an entity that is capable of committing evil can achieve a greater good then one that cannot (you could also sub a non omniscient being here, I think). If that’s the case then it suggests that an imperfect, non omniscient, “free” being can achieve a greater good then an omnibenevolent God… But how can that be the case? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/52 "2011-02-17T15:46:16Z")
BTW, I would answer “no” to both of the initial questions I asked, at least under classic theism. There are other issues, including the problem of heaven. ---
**Author:** ![caligulathegod](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/caligulathegod/32/9685_2.png) [@caligulathegod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/caligulathegod)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/53 "2011-02-23T10:24:09Z")
Wouldn’t Omniscience have to include knowing the future (contrary to a few suggestions), or else what is prophecy? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/54 "2011-02-23T10:56:50Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > It seems to me that if God can do anything (logical possible), then he can create beings who only freely do the good (as someone else stated). If he can’t, that’s a problem. One of which is that it means that such a good being is _impossible_ - not merely a standard hard to live up to, but _logically impossible_ - and therefore God himself _cannot_ be good to that degree. ---
**Author:** ![toro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/58f4c7/32.png) [@toro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toro)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/55 "2011-10-30T22:16:29Z")
None of the responses to this thread have answered the question. Typical of problem-of-evil discussions. A few years ago I was staying at the house of some Christians who own a Christian book store. One of the books in their store was dedicated to resolving the problem of evil by raising the same question as the OP: “So where did this omnibenevolent+omniscient+omnipotent characterisation of God come from?” It’s clearly riddled with problems, so much so that atheists routinely call it out as logical “proof” that believers are irrational. But as several respondents have noted, the Bible does not use these three words. (Same goes for God making a rock so heavy he can’t lift it … the Bible doesn’t mention these kinds of questions, which have more to do with naive logical systems than with religion per se. Modern modal logic might circumnavigate a lot of those apparent problems … google goedel’s modal logic update of St Anselm’s argument for example.) I can’t find the exact name of the book through Google, but the following seems to be similar: > **[How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God](https://books.google.com/books?id=RIJ6DP6RbfAC)** > > How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God brings profound new insights to the Trinitarian doctrines of orthodox Christianity. with clear and precise documentation, the book shows how these doctrines migrated into early Christianity... The author of this book, like the one I picked up in their store, argues that the o+o+o conception is a Hellenic concept, unrelated to any of the early schools of Christianity. I haven’t read the whole thing but it seems like maybe Constantine is to be blamed for re-defining God. Or perhaps those annoying medieval scholastics. But in any case the problem comes from those who tried to square Aristotelian propositional logic with Christian theology. ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/56 "2011-10-31T02:53:27Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > As for the problem of evil itself, as posed in the OP, I still don’t really understand how it’s an issue for anyone who believes in free will which, I think, most Christians do. In order to have a choice, we must have options, without options, it’s not a choice. Thus, in order to choose to do good, we must have non-good options, thus free will necessitates the existence of evil. Thus, the only way to remove evil is to remove free will, but then we are robbed of our ability to learn and grow. Thus, I don’t see it as inconsistent as all, particularly since I believe that is at least part of the reason why God created us. What about earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, floods, volcanoes, etc.? They don’t need free will. If God can’t prevent them, he’s not very all-powerful. If God can, but doesn’t, he’s evil. ---
**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:** [October 31, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/57 "2011-10-31T04:35:42Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > What about earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, floods, volcanoes, etc.? They don’t need free will. If God can’t prevent them, he’s not very all-powerful. If God can, but doesn’t, he’s evil. I predict an argument that they are necessary side-effects of natural world-shaping processes. But what about, say, AIDS, the black death, measles, polio, smallpox, guinea worm, the tsetse fly, malaria, and so on? There is no necessity for those diseases/vectors to exist, let alone be so nasty. ---
**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:** [October 31, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/58 "2011-10-31T06:08:28Z")
> [@toro](#): > > . But in any case the problem comes from those who tried to square Aristotelian propositional logic with Christian theology. No, the problem is trying to pin down Christian theology in the first place. As I’ve mentioned earlier in this thread, attempts to identify the exact attributes of the Christian god have been pretty much useless-just when we think we’ve got a handle on a particular ability of this deity, a religionist pops up and “No, that ain’t it.” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2011, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/59 "2011-10-31T06:42:03Z")
> [@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. So that about does it for all prophecy, the Second Coming and the End of Days, then… ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2011, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346/60 "2011-10-31T11:59:29Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > I predict an argument that they are necessary side-effects of natural world-shaping processes. But what about, say, AIDS, the black death, measles, polio, smallpox, guinea worm, the tsetse fly, malaria, and so on? There is no necessity for those diseases/vectors to exist, let alone be so nasty. True - one could also add in unnecessary suffering. Why do we suffer throughout the ebola process that culminates in our deaths? What benefit is it? Why not have human beings who beneficially suffer (say, when they touch a hot stove), but have that suffering cut off when it is no longer beneficial (when it wouldn’t matter, such as in ebola). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/omni-benevolent-omnipotent-and-omniscient/571346.md?page=4)