A nice start, but lets find the real lesson here.

You've defined 3 impossible terms. Lets tweak them a bit.

Omniscient - A being which knows what can possibly be known.
Omnipotent - A being which is as powerful as a being can possibly be.
Omnibenevolent - A being which is as good as a being can possibly be.

Now the contradiction goes away. Define impossible terms and you get impossible results.

Redefining the terms might seem to remove the contradiction, but it really just hides it behind vaguer language. If “omniscient” now means “knows what can possibly be known,” the obvious question is: who decides what counts as “possible”? If suffering is deemed “unknowable” or “unpreventable,” that’s not solving the problem - it’s admitting that the being isn’t truly all-knowing or all-powerful. It turns the classical God into a very capable but ultimately limited entity.

Likewise, “as powerful as a being can possibly be” is circular. Possible given what? If a world without suffering is logically possible, then failing to create such a world shows a lack of either power, knowledge, or will. If it’s not possible, then reality itself imposes limits on this being, meaning omnipotence was never real to begin with.

And morally, the issue doesn’t go away. Even if this being is “as good as possible,” if it foresaw preventable suffering and chose to allow it, then by any coherent moral standard, it’s not maximally good. If goodness allows needless agony, the word loses meaning.

So, redefining the terms doesn’t eliminate the contradiction - it just concedes that the traditional “all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good” God can’t exist without being reinterpreted as a finite or morally compromised one.

it’s admitting that the being isn’t truly all-knowing or all-powerful. It turns the classical God into a very capable but ultimately limited entity. — Truth Seeker

Correct. Thus, the problem is solved. No being can be unlimited. The lesson is to ensure that one's definitions do not cross into impossible territory. Whenever listening to anyone's proposed terms, one should first evaluate whether the terms are logical in themselves before accepting them as true.

Likewise, “as powerful as a being can possibly be” is circular. Possible given what? — Truth Seeker

Given the limits of reality. We don't know those limits, so putting them forth is futile.

If a world without suffering is logically possible — Truth Seeker

We do not know this. It may not be possible.

If it’s not possible, then reality itself imposes limits on this being, meaning omnipotence was never real to begin with. — Truth Seeker

Even if it were possible, omnipotence defined as "All powerful" is impossible. The term itself results in the ability to not contradict when a contradiction occurs. There are limits to everything.

And morally, the issue doesn’t go away. Even if this being is “as good as possible,” if it foresaw preventable suffering and chose to allow it, then by any coherent moral standard, it’s not maximally good. — Truth Seeker

If it foresaw unnecessary suffering, had the power to do something about it, and suffering was truthfully evil in this instance, then we can imagine a better being existing because there are humans who would do something about that. Meaning you haven't made a contradiction, you've simply yet to describe the the most benevolent being that has the power to prevent 'evil'.

So, redefining the terms doesn’t eliminate the contradiction - it just concedes that the traditional “all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good” God can’t exist without being reinterpreted as a finite or morally compromised one. — Truth Seeker

It doesn't have to be that a God is morally compromised. It simply means if you are going to describe a God with impossible terms, you're going to get an impossible conclusion. The only realistic way to describe a God is with realistic terms.

:halo: :up:

(2020) my two shekels ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/506435

Suffering is good for the soul.
Imperfection is better than perfection.
Knowledge creates the unknown.

Thank you for the link to your other post. I read it and I totally agree.

You’ve correctly pointed out that “no being can be unlimited.” But that admission doesn’t solve the problem - it changes the subject. The argument was never about a limited superbeing, but about the logical incoherence of the traditional theistic claim that God is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

If you concede that omnipotence and omniscience are impossible, then you’re agreeing that the classical God concept is self-contradictory. That’s not a solution to the problem of evil - it’s the abandonment of classical theism. You’re left with a finite, naturalistic being operating within the limits of reality - powerful perhaps, but not divine in any ultimate sense.

Saying “we don’t know if a world without suffering is possible” also doesn’t rescue the theistic claim. Theists don’t usually portray God as uncertain about metaphysical possibilities; they claim that God created all metaphysical possibilities. If suffering is built into reality’s fabric, then God either designed it that way (which contradicts perfect goodness) or lacked the power to design differently (which contradicts omnipotence).

Regarding your point that omnipotence itself is impossible: if so, then every theology that attributes omnipotence to God collapses into incoherence. The “lesson” here isn’t to adjust definitions but to recognize that the very concept of an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing deity fails under logical and moral analysis.

So yes - I agree that redefining God with “realistic terms” avoids contradiction. But what you’re describing then is not the God of classical monotheism; it’s a finite being within a constrained universe. In that case, the argument doesn’t refute my point - it confirms it.

“Suffering is good for the soul” only makes sense if (1) souls exist, and (2) suffering actually improves them. Both claims lack evidence. What we do know is that suffering destroys countless lives - human and other sentient species - including those who never learn, grow, or recover from it. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being needs agony to teach virtue, it’s a design failure, not moral wisdom. A competent creator could achieve moral growth through joy, empathy, or insight - not torture.

“Imperfection is better than perfection” is self-contradictory unless you redefine “better.” Better than what? If something is better, that means it surpasses another state, implying a standard of perfection that it moves closer to. You can’t coherently claim imperfection is superior to perfection without hollowing out the meaning of both terms.

“Knowledge creates the unknown” is a poetic statement, but epistemologically false. Knowledge reduces the unknown; ignorance is what creates it. Expanding understanding reveals new questions, yes - but that’s a deepening of knowledge, not a return to ignorance.

So all three claims rely on romantic inversions of meaning rather than reasoned argument. They sound mystical, but once unpacked, they offer no coherent defence of suffering or imperfection.

So all three claims rely on romantic inversions of meaning rather than reasoned argument. They sound mystical, but once unpacked, they offer no coherent defence of suffering or imperfection. — Truth Seeker

What is your evidence to the contrary? You can claim the meaning of words as evidence, but then you are retreating from factuality yourself. But there is a religious tradition of asceticism that is by no means romantic, that regards voluntary privation as a spiritual discipline, and even mere athletes regard pain as a barrier to be overcome.

Likewise physicists often say that the more one knows the more one is aware of the extent of one's ignorance. In the case of God, He is a simple. He can know everything, but he can also create the unknown-to-Himself. He can hide things from himself, just as you can shut your eyes to some things.

For God, to create is necessarily to create the ungodly, that is creation. Creation is lesser than the creator and thus imperfect. But though imperfect and superfluous, creation adds something to the perfection that is God.

But let me tell you my position. My real claim is that reality cannot be constrained by words. If there is God, words cannot force him out of existence, and if there is no God, words cannot argue Him into existence. So a careful truth seeker will not try to prove with words the existence or non-existence of anything, but will be content to say merely that they have had no experience and found no evidence of God, unless and until they have had such experience or evidence.

↪Philosophim You’ve correctly pointed out that “no being can be unlimited.” But that admission doesn’t solve the problem - it changes the subject. The argument was never about a limited superbeing, but about the logical incoherence of the traditional theistic claim that God is simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. — Truth Seeker

Correct, but any good thinker and philosopher is not going to take the low hanging fruit. They're going to be charitable to ideas they don't like themselves. This is a problem that is easily solved by high schoolers (I know, I was in high school when I first encountered it), and so we have to ask why its stuck around so persistently.

One thing to realize is that if you hold impossible terms, its also impossible to counter someone who believes in them. "Can God create a rock so big even he can't lift it?" Sure, he made himself a man, now he can't lift it. The realm of impossibility is the realm of imagination and child play. It is literally child's play to take your contradiction and simply ignore it because 'unlimited' means I can ignore your contradiction.

If you're accepting that impossible terms can exist and be considered, you're going to end up not winning. Because you haven't proven that impossible terms are impossible, you've only proved a contradiction through some word play to someone who believes in impossibility. Notice how you can point out a contradiction that can be realized in high school and yet there are hundreds of millions of people who still believe in a God? Crowing over a simple contradiction while it changes no one is foolish. You have to think deeper than that. And part of that is being kind to your opponents viewpoint.

If instead you can get the other person to think, "The way to solve the contradiction reasonably instead of simply brushing it off, is to revise the terms to be reasonable," now you have something. You're being charitable. "Couldn't it be," you say, "that people thousands of years ago were simply defining the terms as exaggerations, but really when we examine the word carefully it makes more sense to think in them this way?" NOW you've got the other person thinking. Most people will think, "Yeah, that makes sense." You haven't disproved God, but you were never going to do that anyway. You're doing one better. You've gotten them away from thinking in impossible terms, and now thinking in possible terms.

This is the difference between a person who has a goal of convincing someone of a particular assertion, and instead gets a person to think in a more rational way. That's the goal. Get a person to start thinking rationally and then you can have a reasonable discussion. Meet the person you're talking with half way. Try to see what they want, find what is irrational, then try to shape it in the most rational way from what they want. Then you can take the next step and demonstrate how the next steps of rationality do not lead to a particular conclusion.

That’s not a solution to the problem of evil - it’s the abandonment of classical theism. You’re left with a finite, naturalistic being operating within the limits of reality - powerful perhaps, but not divine in any ultimate sense. — Truth Seeker

Incorrect. You're simply setting "The divine" in terms of "The real" instead of the imaginary. Again, if your goal is to invalidate theism with "The problem of Evil", an ancient and basic argument, hundreds of millions of people will show you its a fools errand. You cannot convince someone of something rational if they aren't already thinking in rational terms. You aren't going to invalidate their faith, so do one better. Get them to think in rational terms. You're not invalidating theism, you're reshaping it to be in the realm of reasonability first. Then you might have a chance.

There's a potential theodicy I quite like, but whether you'd buy it depends on how you'd answer this question:

If it could be proved to you, right now, that at one point in the past you'd suffered terrible hardship but a) had completely forgotten it, and b) suffered no ongoing ill effects, would you regard that situation as in any way a misfortune? Would there be anything there to regret or deplore?

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. — Truth Seeker

Under the previous assumptions/definitions, there could be multiple omniscient beings, but what would happen if two omnipotent sentient beings wanted to prevent harm on different ways? Doesn't seem logically possible unless you also assume that such beings will always agree on everything (maybe so if omniscient). But that additional assumption would have all sorts of implications - e.g., lack of free will. Yes/no?

If a being is omniscient, it knows every possible outcome of every possible creation. — Truth Seeker

This is not necessarily true. It depends on what your definition of “omniscient” is. It might just mean knowledge of everything the way it is right now. If the universe is not determinate, an omniscient entity might not be able to know the future.

This highlights the fact that your whole argument is about language and not about reality.

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. — Truth Seeker

Again, this comes down to the meaning of the word “omnipotent” which you’ve defined as having “the power to bring about any logically possible outcome.” it really doesn’t make much sense to me.

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. — Truth Seeker

This doesn’t strike me as necessarily true.

A perfectly omnibenevolent being necessarily prefers the outcome that maximizes well-being and minimizes suffering. — Truth Seeker

Again, I don’t see why this is necessarily true.

If a deity created sentient beings who suffer, that deity either lacked the knowledge, the power, or the will to prevent that suffering. — Truth Seeker

Again, again, I don’t see this as necessarily true either.

Therefore, a being responsible for preventable suffering cannot be all three at once. — Truth Seeker

In summary—your argument strikes me as the kind of argument someone who doesn’t have a good grasp on what omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence mean. To be fair, I know you’re not the one who started this particular way of seeing things. It’s been around for centuries.

Why did you not add that the created beings, in addition to being omnipotent and omniscient, could also be created so that they are omnibenevolent? Or is the creation of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creature not logically possible? If not, that would seem to raise an objection to the argument. For, an omnipotent and omniscient creature whose will was inclined towards ill would seem able and inclined to cause suffering.

Free will seems relevant to the argument.