Anyone's standards.
Commonly , for example, 'benevolent' is defined as always doing the right, or good, thing when the situation arises to do so (more in line with the 'omnibenevolence' Coyote mentioned). This, of course, flies against the notion of 'omnipotence', which is the power to do anything and everything. Obviously, any entity that is
forced to do good whenever the opportunity arises is far from being 'omnipotent', being subjugated, as it were, to their own 'benevolence'. So, 'benevolence' and 'omnipotence' are clearly out of the question as sensible terms to describe any actual thing that may existincluding gods. 'Omniscience' simply increases such incidents of conflict between these properties as often defined.
So, folk have defined these words in such an exclusive way, and then tacked them on to descriptions of GOD and say: 'HA! You're goddy don't make no sense'. It's just very disingenuous, and not at all a productive discussion technique. The biggest wonder is why the hell so many religious folk let them get away with it... me thinks they haven't figured it out yet.
Your standards, if you like. In your opinion, what standards of benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence are consistent with a God who allows his sentient creatures to suffer from the natural evil entailed by the evolutionary process?
Given the way these things are defined, there is simply no way such an entity could exist, and even if such an entity did exist, it would be so damn screwed up that it'd hardly be worth calling GOD and worshippingI believe. As to how we could define them to accurately describe GOD, I cannot even begin to guess, but it is certainly
not in the way they are commonly defined.
Being less familiar with non-Christian faiths, I don't know whether Jews and Muslims attribute all three of those qualities to God. But if they do, I would be interested in hearing their views on the subject, too.
What about people who do not belong to faith groups?
Jon
Check out Apollo's Temple!
™ Version 4.2