(6) Since omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence are often considered the principal attributes of the Judeo-Christian God,7 why do Berkeley's principal descriptions of God make no allusions to omnipotence while he later freely ascribes omnipotence to God?
(63) The claim regarding omnibenevolence is based on a search for "omnibenevolent," "omni-benevolent," "omnibenevolence," and "omnibenevolence" in the Past Masters database.
And so I looked at the literature and found myself embroiled within diverse and difficult discussions of logical versus evidential arguments, of skeptical theism versus friendly atheism, on questions of the attributes of the divine, such as omniscience and omnipotence and
omnibenevolence, and on the possibilities of possible worlds, and the question of whether among these there would be a best one.
This argument assumes omnipotence, omniscience and
omnibenevolence for God and that he exercises, in particular, the first at all times without regard for allowing freedom of all things to "become" on their own.
Google's omniscience and omnibenevolence, among other divine
immortality, and omnibenevolence); but see Hate Mail--Church of Google,
Though this body of reality is regarded as an ultimate principle, establishing the basis for such properties of buddhahood as those of omniscience and
omnibenevolence, it is not to be thought of as a personal divinity or as a creator.
A second, more controversial approach questions God's
omnibenevolence. God is released from responsibility when we recognize his moral imperfection, or even his depravity.
Thus Thomas's position is that God has full knowledge of nonexistents since they correspond to concepts in his intellect, which comprehends all "enunciables." Indeed, God must be able to grasp these for several reasons: (1) because he otherwise would not be omniscient, (2) because his
omnibenevolence requires comparative preferences, and (3) because his omnipotence would otherwise be impeded as well, since the full exercise of any power (including creative power) requires knowledge of the range of alternatives lying within one's power.
The situation becomes even more oxymoronic when, in addition to omnipotence and omniscience, a religion credits its god with
omnibenevolence. The incompatibility of omnipotence and
omnibenevolence was recognized by Epicurus more than 2,400 years ago:
Furthermore, because contradictions result, he stresses that it is not possible for god to have all of the following characteristics: omniscience, omnipotence,
omnibenevolence, and transcendence (surprisingly, there is no discussion of divine omnipresence).
the notion of divine
omnibenevolence is shockingly permissive morally, to the point of sanctioning the justice of the Holocaust!