As far back as Ancient Greece, people knew that a 'tri-omni' god (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) cannot exist. That only leaves a god who is malevolent or imaginary. Which option is preferable, in your opinion?
2006-10-30 11:52:36 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I don't believe in supernatural beings, but if I did, I wouldn't accept the premise that a god *couldn't* be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
But, accepting the premise for the moment: I'd have to choose non-existent over malevolent. Sure, it would be nice to have a god who would smite my enemies for a while, but sooner or later he would end up smiting me too.
2006-10-30 11:56:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am assuming that your premise is that being omniscient would preempt being omnibenevolent.
How could one be benevolent when one knows what is going to happen?
The christian ideal of God is one that is malevolent. He punishes those who do not worship him, after all, that is what we were created for. And occasionally, he will burn cities to the ground, kill everyone in a flood, of sick plague and pestilence upon them.
Why does he do this? It comes from omnipotence of course. One cannot f*ck with an all powerful God.
It is because of all this that I know what God truly is, imaginary.
2006-10-30 20:02:54 · answer #2 · answered by Random 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the choice is only malevolent of non-existent I'll choose non-existent.
However I find your list of options limited, I hope that isn't a measure of intellect.
2006-10-30 19:58:35 · answer #3 · answered by Black Dragon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I have to choose I go with imaginary, which I think God is anyway.
2006-10-30 19:58:34 · answer #4 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋