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.