Omniscience and omnipotence

The Con side has made several claims that he argues refute any probability of an omniscient and omnipotent god. Note that the Con side also challenges the benevolence of such a god, given that benevolence can not be adequately defined. However, Con does not make an argument that omniscience and omnipotence hinge upon benevolence. To summarize, I will succeed at this debate if I can show that the present state of affairs suggests a possibility for a god that is omniscient and omnipotent. I do not have to show benevolence, but I assume Con would like me to show a possibility of a universal benevolence. This I will attempt as well, in the spirit of the debate if not the letter of its criteria. ***Assuming a god that is universal in appearance, such god is omnipotent and omnipresent*** If what mankind terms god is seen as the motive force within all of creation, then such god is omnipotent (it possesses all power) and omniscient (it knows all things for it is in possession of and creates all knowledge). Con argues that of necessity such a god would suggest predestination. Perhaps, although predestination is a belief held by many religious denominations - such a state does not disprove the possibility of an omniscient and omnipotent god. However, Con appears to argue that predestination eliminates culpability for action, and that lack of culpability means that there is no "justice." Let me propose a wild theory - that we are all fractal systemic manifestations of the cosmic consciousness we refer to as "God." Assuming this is the case, and that we are the language of this all encompassing being as it communicates within itself using systemic expressions of perceptual consciousness (i.e. us and anything motive in nature), then the abandonment of some of us for the benefit of others would be for God akin to our abandonment of bad thoughts on behalf of good. Like such thoughts as we recognize in the microcosm as expressions of perception of the good and bad variety, so too from a macroscopic perspective might such a God see the abandonment of some of us as the recognition of the "good" expression over the "bad." Such judgment is the same judgment as we would exercise at a lesser level of sophistication, and might therefore be said to be "just" not in the sense of pursuing justice towards equals but in the sense of doing what is good and right as regards oneself. In this manner, God might be just, and remain seemingly non-benevolent. ***Towards universal benevolence*** The question arises whether or not a God possessing the qualities of omnipotence and omnipresence may be omni-benevolent (all good) while the world remains in a state that some would define as "not good." The question then arises though, what is "good?" Con seems to suggest that since an omnipresent and omnipotent God can only be presently possessed by a God that we would not define as good, either God is not good or the concept of "good" has no meaning. Let us consider an alternative. "Good" does have multiple meanings in the English language. See http://www.merriam-webster.com... . Rather than arguing semantics, let's look at why there are so many definitions of the word "good." "Good" possesses a different meaning depending upon the context in which it is used. In the case of a cosmic being, "good" would mean good on a cosmic scale (i.e. what is good for the whole and not necessarily a part of the whole). Continuing with the possibility that god is a cosmic consciousness, and that we are components of that thought process, what is good would be what is right thinking. If we are the process by which such thinking occurs, then what is good is to allow us to conflict and resolve, as thoughts are wont to do, for the benefit of the greater corpus. There is some evidence that this is the case. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... . *** Closing Argument *** In closing, there is a distinct possibility that an omnipotent and omniscient consciousness, of which we are an active part, benevolently allows us to suffer for the greater good of the whole. This possibility is more than mere conjecture as scientific models have shown that universal physics are analogous to human consciousness. Since I need but prove possibility, and since I have shown evidence of such possibility, I have met my burden for this debate. The resolution is affirmed.