Unsurprisingly, you completely fail to comprehend what “evil” means.
If evil is a consequence of scarcity, why isn’t God responsible for that scarcity, and therefore for creating evil?
I like it…
I did not say evil was a consequence of scarcity, there was plenty then and there is plenty now to go around to all people living on the planet. Because some feel (falsely) the need to take and hoard, ignoring the suffering of their fellow man there seems to be a shortage where none is present. The powerful will steal, kill, and lie to add to their vast stores of money and/or food while others starve. That my friend is evil.
The down-and-out will kill, steal, and lie to add to their vanishing stores of money / food. Is that not also evil?
My other answer to “Could God make a rock so heavy that He couldn’t lift it?” is “Yeah–but where would He put it?”
If that’s true, then God lacks some knowledge, which makes him NOT omniscient. The proof therefore requires its conclusion to support one of its intermediate steps, and hence is invalid.
But our knowledge of bacteria is only the product of observations. If they, like us, had an inner life of some kind then we would never be able to fully understand them and that alone would be enough to invalidate any claims to omniscience we might make about the behaviour of bacteria. Bacteria, being incapable of having meaningful subjective experiences, tell us everything we need to know about them from their behaviour. The same is certainly not true of us, and therefore you can’t compare our relationship with them to God’s relationship to us.
One of the premises of my argument is that only an omniscient being can truly know another’s mind. However, that same being couldn’t fairly be called omnibenevolent because it would, by necessity, have experienced the negative emotions of others. Therefore, God can’t be both omniscient and omnibenevolent.
I’m not sure I follow. Could you elaborate please?
No I didn’t. Note the question mark in my OP title. I’m asking if it’s a slam dunk, not stating so as fact.
Perfect by the standards of mainstream Christianity, which holds that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.
Whatever the integrity of our standards of perfection, I think it goes without saying that a perfect being shouldn’t be able to experience, say, irrational racial hatred.
P.S. - This may be out of line for GD but could I politely request that posters don’t respond to lekatt? I’d like to see one thread withstand his musings without completely derailing.
Basically when questions like this are asked the answer is found in Romans I believe, where go says something like “I will have mercy on whom I"ll have mercy and I’ll have compassion on whom I will have compassion. By the same hand I mold the righteoous I mold the unrighteous.”
In other words God is politely telling you to mind your own business 
Yes, that is evil also.
Omnibenevolent, at least, is not a standard of mainstream Christianity. “Believe in Jesus or burn in Hell forever” is usually the standard, though there are many who adapt a softer line. Others take an even more hardcore approach, narrowing the saved to include only literal Bible believers, Creationists, non-Democrats…
The other three Big-Os are hard to nail down. Does God, for instance, know everything that might have happened? If the wind had blown from the west that day, instead of from the north-west?
A similar example is free-will vs. predestination–if we have free-will, then the future is not set into stone. If God knows the future, then does He know every possible future, from the velocity and position of every quantum particle to the state of the universe as a whole? Or does He know only which future we will freely choose? That, of course, assumes that Many Worlds is not valid.
Similar questions and arguments arise for omnipresent and omnipotent.
It does not go without saying. That is applying your own modern moral code to a being who has, according to religion, existed since before the universe. The God of the Bible didn’t think too highly of most women. For a good long time, He didn’t much care for non-Hebrews, either.
You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the Bible, or in any other material.
The majority of Cristians (i.e. catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican) do not belive that.
“Ages-long purgatorial suffering”, then?
If you are claiming there is something about feeling emotions that God does not know without Him actually feeling those emotions, then you are already limiting His “omnimaxness” in that step of your proof. An omnimax WOULD know everything already, by definition, including everything about emotions without feeling them.
That step of your proof requires that your conclusion already be taken as a given. That is a fatal flaw in a proof.
I would consider that comment to be threadsh*tting. Even if your claim were absolutely correct, it would have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the OP’s argument.
Only the ones that got in our way. Actually, not being Jewish is not considered and was never considered evil or immoral or something that gets you punishment in the afterlife. Even back then non-Hebrews were assumed to have it better than non-Christians in the Christian view.
This is an assertion, not a fact. Presuming that emotions are the result of chemical reactions in our brain, a being which could create those reactions would understand precisely what would happen due to them, regardless that he had no such parts.
That is to say, I don’t need to have gearwork in my head to understand that a clock will strike 1pm at a particular moment.
Of course, why you would care to descend so far as to prove or disprove the Abrahamic god, when there’s so many others to disprove first, seems questionable.
Why not feel emotions also? Seems like it’s an arbitrary restriction. Some might say that some emotions are bad/evil, therefore a perfect being wouldn’t have them, but maybe it’s less perfect to not actually have the emotions. Maybe the perfect being has the emotions and doesn’t have them simultaneously.
At what point in time? Human beliefs change with time, but our standard for the perfect being should be the same today as it was at all points in time, right?
This seems the weak link in the chain. I mean, it’s impossible to really “know” what a snail is, without being a snail, therefore an omnimax God must be a snail and must be deeply fearful of salt, and vulnerable to being crushed underfoot.
I doubt that a snail knows even what a snail is, let alone a God. To truly know a snail, He’d have to become one… and, in so doing, forget that He is God. He would remain a snail, forevermore.
Might explain some things.