The Equal Omniscience and Omnipotence Argument — Truth Seeker

If I may, I'd like to look at this through the lens of a materialistic, and pantheistic, point-of-view. Consider that all that exists contains all the knowledge and all the power needed to keep the universe going.

I do notice that you mention "beings" and "sentient beings" in your OP - but must omniscience and omnipotence be restricted to them?

I think it might be rightly concluded that all that exists is omniscient and omnipotent.

Now to the question of benevolence - I think this is a man-made concept, rather anthropomorphic, and not an accurate reflection of reality. Reality doesn't operate according to better or worse, but just what is. Same holds true for nature, for example with the theory of evolution - which has no end goals, but is a progression of complex chemistry to produce the best suited to live in a particular environment.

And so, in a pantheistic worldview - "God" (i.e. all of creation) would be omniscient and omnipotent, but the notions of good and evil do not enter into the equation. All is merely what it is.

Classical free will requires:

the ability to choose otherwise — Truth Seeker

Are we currently operating with that definition, or is free will now determined by one's nature or cognitive architecture?

The classical problem of evil remains intact. — Truth Seeker

That's probably true, but these discussions do show that the classical problem isn't necessarily the only way to frame our understanding of God and evil. What I'm going to take away from the discussion is the thought that, when it comes to human suffering, subjective experience and judgment may carry a lot more ethical weight than it would first appear, from a strictly rationalist perspective. See: justice vs. mercy.

Appreciate your work on this.

What if omniscient and omnipotent beings also happen to be necessary? In that case, they could not be created, they would already exist. And also, if an omniscient-omnipotent being is necessary, could there really be, say, 12 of them? Or 20? Wouldn't there be 1 or an infinite amount?

Your view effectively resolves the problem of evil by denying that benevolence is a property of reality at all. But that is not a defense of omnibenevolent theism - it is a rejection of it.

Redefining omniscience and omnipotence as impersonal properties of “all that exists” strips them of agency, intentionality, and moral relevance. What remains is causal completeness, not a morally accountable God.

Once benevolence is dismissed as anthropomorphic, suffering no longer requires justification - but neither does reality deserve moral trust, worship, or praise. At that point, “God” becomes a poetic synonym for nature, not a being to whom moral predicates meaningfully apply.

In other words, the argument is not answered; it is bypassed by abandoning the very kind of God it addresses.

I’m explicitly using the classical libertarian definition - the ability to choose otherwise under identical conditions - because that is the version required to ground ultimate moral responsibility in traditional theistic frameworks.

If “free will” is instead defined as acting in accordance with one’s nature or cognitive architecture, then choices are fully explained by prior causes, and alternative possibilities do not exist. That may preserve a colloquial sense of freedom, but it cannot absolve a creator from responsibility for the outcomes of the system they designed.

So yes, if free will is determined by nature, then classical free will does not exist - and with it goes the standard moral defense against the problem of evil.

Thank you, J. I appreciate that framing, and I agree that subjective suffering carries immense ethical weight. Where I’d want to keep a distinction clear is between responding to suffering with mercy, and explaining suffering within a metaphysical framework.

The problem of evil operates at the level of coherence between claimed divine attributes and observed reality. Compassion and mercy guide how we treat those who suffer, but they don’t, by themselves, resolve that explanatory tension. If anything, the moral pull toward mercy highlights how inadequate many justificatory theodicies feel when confronted with lived experience.

Thanks for the thoughtful engagement - I appreciate the discussion as well.

If an omniscient–omnipotent being is necessary, then its existence and actions are not contingent or chosen, but metaphysically fixed. In that case, whatever world exists - including its suffering - exists necessarily as well.

That move does not resolve the problem of evil; it dissolves moral agency altogether. A necessary being cannot meaningfully be praised for goodness or blamed for harm, since no alternative was possible.

Whether there is one such being, many, or infinitely many is irrelevant to the ethical issue. The presence of involuntary suffering remains unchanged. What results is not classical theism, but a form of necessitarian or pantheistic metaphysics in which moral predicates no longer apply in the usual sense.

Your view effectively resolves the problem of evil by denying that benevolence is a property of reality at all. But that is not a defense of omnibenevolent theism - it is a rejection of it. — Truth Seeker

I suppose it is, but I did say I was approaching the question from a materialist, pantheistic point-of-view.

I do not believe in the existence of "evil" as its own entity. There is no force that we can say is the source of evil. "Evil" is a man-made construct. Now, we might say that we can use "evil" as an adjective rather than a noun - that human behavior might be termed "evil" if it harms others. But this is a result of a very strong instinct to survive combined with a brain that developed with the capacity to do evil acts.

As to the question of benevolence - again - of course humans may do benevolent things. But it is not because of some external force that has entered into them, something detached from who they are, but rather humans evolved to guard and maintain the group. We are first and foremost social creatures. This necessitates the evolution of things like empathy.

agency, intentionality, and moral relevance — Truth Seeker

The only thing in existence that we know of that has these qualities is the human species. They are all products of our evolution.

not a morally accountable God. — Truth Seeker

Taking this from the pantheistic point-of-view - no, Nature is not morally accountable to us.

Once benevolence is dismissed as anthropomorphic, suffering no longer requires justification - but neither does reality deserve moral trust, worship, or praise. — Truth Seeker

I disagree. I think an inherent sense of awe and wonder at all of creation leads us to not only treat it morally, but to also respect and revere it, while at the same time valuing reason and science.

At that point, “God” becomes a poetic synonym for nature, not a being to whom moral predicates meaningfully apply. — Truth Seeker

Our morality is a product of our evolution.

the argument is not answered — Truth Seeker

Yes, I see, rather a new one was made.

Strict omnipotence is not a logically coherent notion. Multiple contradictions follow. One standard one, "can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" Either he can, and his power is limited in lifting it, or he cannot, and his power is limited in creating it.

You explicitly include a contradictory ability: the ability to create omnipotent beings. You can't have two omnipotent beings. One can always try to strip omnipotence from the other. Either that attempt fails, limiting the power of the first, or it succeeds, limiting the power of the second.

Further, you cannot have two omnipotent and omniscient beings. One can always predict the actions of the other. Either the prediction fails, limiting the omniscience of the first, or it succeeds, limiting the power of the second to act outside of the first's predictions.

So, the rest of your proof is redundant. Your premises are already contradictory.

Moreover, you are arguing with Christian secondary literature, not primary. The idea of God being philosophically perfect, possessing all the "omnis", only arose with the fusion of Christianity and Greek philosophy, really beginning with Augustine.

A necessary omniscient-omnipotent (O-O) being would invalidate 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."