We're not about the business of defining God. It can't be done. These descriptors work in a theological context that is generally at odds with theodicy, which is what we're discussing.
Of course not. They are pretend qualities for a pretend deity. It would seem self evident nothing could actually exhibit any of the three omnis.
If that's your position, then you have no dog in the hunt where theology is concerned and you should respectfully bow out.
To say that "it would seem self-evident" is to say that you don't understand theology enough to pose any kind of valid theological argument. But maybe you're just here to provoke and entertain yourself at our expense?
Now you are trying to equivocate yourself out of a corner. They are the qualities which make god a good god. God may have other qualities like being petty, wrathful and jealous. But without the omnis, she is not a god.
this is infantile theological thinking.
Mental, emotional or physical anguish. Often closely associated with pain, but not pain in and of itself. For example you can suffer the anticipation of pain.
What is the cause of the anguish? Is it externally-enforced, or internally cased? Why are all forms of suffering lumped together? Surely we can separate suffering into several categories of cause, quantity, and purpose? You see, until we've explored human suffering and decided what
specifically we'd like to address theologically, it does no good to put God in the mix. A very broad set of human conditions cannot rightly be used to disprove or defame God.
Maybe it'd be best for you if you got a handle on theology, and its purpose, before we proceed further.
