That invokes the basic problem of theodicy:  Omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent—pick two.

To my knowledge, the argument was first set forth in 1436 by Laurentius Valla in De libero arbitrio.  (To avoid being burnt at the stake by the love of merciful Christians, Valla used a “Two Truths” style argument to pretend that he was impugning Apollo, not the Christian deity.)

Whence evil?

• If a monotheistic God himself created evil and is the prime cause of evil, then he is omniscient and omnipotent, but not infinitely benevolent.
• If God cannot stop evil, then he is omniscient and benevolent, but not omnipotent.
• If God lacks the foreknowledge needed to stop evil events from occurring, then he is omnipotent and benevolent, but not omniscient.
• Evil exists, as you will observe.  Thus, either God himself wills it—or God is powerless to intervene against it—or God does not know the future, such that he can stop evil from occurring.

Despite all the volumes of argumentation that have been spent by theologians tying themselves in knots over it, this logical trap is insuperable:  An omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god cannot exist.

Not all religions suffer this problem—to the contrary, it is a theological failure only suffered by monotheisms that allege a benevolent God.


Eh, just because.  I will quote “chapter and verse” from the greatest ethicist of the past two thousand years.