The logical consequences of omnipotence

[fr0d0]

if god is omnipotent, then by necessity all the apologetics theists use to excuse the immorality of god's actions are nullified; an omnipotent god is by definition either disinterested in us, or actively malevolent against us, if he doesn't act to disable all suffering. And that if he's not omnipotent, then there's a lot of false advertising going on.

Criticisms noted and appreciated. I would certainly hold my hand up to being a poor communicator. And to being too readily drawn into conflict. Although I've restrained myself considerably if you've seen my behavior here in the past. Nothing to be proud of but I'm human.

I don't see God's omnipotence limited at all. What is seen as God unable to do something is God's overall plan to do something that in the minutiae will be very confusing to you.

As we don't have the option of omniscience, this cannot be known to us.

God is never malevolent to us. But God's benevolence doesn't involve preventing us from harm of every kind. God's benevolent plan for us is primarily that we enjoy life to the full. A life without the potential for extremes would never attain that.
Natural disaster is the mechanism by which life on earth exists. Assuming God, his greater plan is facilitated by the laws of physics. By life and death, by happiness and suffering.
Omnibenevolence isn't a characteristic of the Christian God. God is love. Love is Gods moving force. That's how we define him. Mistranslating biblical text to show the opposite it nonsensical. Why would the Jews hold that God was loving with reference to their own record that says the opposite. Someone is reading it wrong there, and I would suggest to you that it isn't them.

We have a great formal debate thread in the debate area stitching up the logical errors that challenge omnipotence that I'd encourage you to check out between Rift and Saerules. Apologies I can't link you add I'm on my phone. Take care.