Well, all but B and D are redundant, an omnipotent being could simply choose to be perfect in every other way. If they are not they specifically avoid being.
Omniscience is not implied by omnipotence. Choosing to be omniscient would first require a perfect knowledge of in what ways they are not omniscient. A sniper in a tower may have the power to destroy any living thing within 300 yards, but if they don’t know what their target is, the power to act doesn’t grant them the knowledge necessary to do so effectively. This, writ-large, is why most people list omniscience in addition to omnipotence among the powers of the abrahamic god (omnibenevolence has been added by much more recent Christians who don’t read the bible). Being all-knowing is required in order to effectively utilise omnipotence, but is not implied by it.
Also, A is listed as the base assumption, and is thus not redundant. It is what you fall back on if B-D are held true, by reductio ad absurdum. Since the other three cannot be true with our definitions of them, and they must be true in order to fit the definition of God according to these people, A would be true by reduction.
Well, all but B and D are redundant, an omnipotent being could simply choose to be perfect in every other way. If they are not they specifically avoid being.
Omniscience is not implied by omnipotence. Choosing to be omniscient would first require a perfect knowledge of in what ways they are not omniscient. A sniper in a tower may have the power to destroy any living thing within 300 yards, but if they don’t know what their target is, the power to act doesn’t grant them the knowledge necessary to do so effectively. This, writ-large, is why most people list omniscience in addition to omnipotence among the powers of the abrahamic god (omnibenevolence has been added by much more recent Christians who don’t read the bible). Being all-knowing is required in order to effectively utilise omnipotence, but is not implied by it.
Also, A is listed as the base assumption, and is thus not redundant. It is what you fall back on if B-D are held true, by reductio ad absurdum. Since the other three cannot be true with our definitions of them, and they must be true in order to fit the definition of God according to these people, A would be true by reduction.