Omnibenevolence is the property of possessing maximal goodness. Some philosophers, such asEpicurus^[a], have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongsideomniscience andomnipotence, as a result of theproblem of evil. However, some philosophers, such asAlvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility ofco-existence.

The wordomnibenevolence derives from the Latin prefixomni-, meaning "all", and the wordsbene andvolens, meaning "good" and "will", respectively. Thus the term means "all good will".^[1]

The term is patterned on, and often accompanied by, the termsomniscience andomnipotence, typically to refer to conceptions of an "all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful" deity. Philosophers and theologians more commonly use phrases like "perfectly good",^[2] or simply the term "benevolence". The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.

The earliest record for its use in English, according to theOxford English Dictionary, is in 1679. TheCatholic Church does not appear to use the term "omnibenevolent" in theliturgy orCatechism.^{[citation needed]}Saint Thomas Aquinas in particular explained inSumma Theologica that God may indirectly want evil in the physical world, when this is necessary for the greater good of the order of the universe.^[3]

Modern users of the term includeGeorge H. Smith in his bookAtheism: The Case Against God (1980),^[4] where he argued that divine qualities are inconsistent. However, the term is also used by authors who defend the coherence of divine attributes, including but not limited to, Jonathan Kvanvig inThe Problem of Hell (1993),^[5] andJoshua Hoffman andGary Rosenkrantz inThe Divine Attributes (2002).^[6]

The terminology has been used by some prominentRoman Catholic figures, examples being BishopRobert Barron,Doctor of Sacred Theology in his 2011 bookCatholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith.^[7]

The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate deity has raised certainatheistic objections, such as theproblem of evil and theproblem of Hell. Responses to such problems are calledtheodicies and can be general, arguing for the coherence of the divine, such asSwinburne'sProvidence and the Problem of Evil, or they can address a specific problem, such as Charles Seymour'sA Theodicy of Hell.

Proponents ofpandeism contend that benevolence (much less omnibenevolence) is simply not required to account for any property of our Universe, as a morally neutral deity which was powerful enough to have created our Universe as we experience it would be, by definition, able to have created our Universe as we experience it. William C. Lane contended that pandeism thereby offered an escape from theevidential argument from evil:^[8] In 2010, author William C. Lane contended that:

In pandeism, God is no superintending, heavenly power, capable of hourly intervention into earthly affairs. No longer existing "above," Godcannot intervene from above and cannot be blamed for failing to do so. Instead Godbears all suffering, whether the fawn's^[9] or anyone else's.Even so, a skeptic might ask, "Why must there beso much suffering,? Why could not the world's design omit or modify the events that cause it?" In pandeism, the reason is clear: to remain unified, a world must convey information through transactions. Reliable conveyance requires relatively simple, uniform laws. Laws designed to skip around suffering-causing events or to alter their natural consequences (i.e., their consequences under simple laws) would need to be vastly complicated or (equivalently) to contain numerous exceptions.^{[8]: 76–77}

The theological justification stems from God'saseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God.^{[citation needed]} For if he was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element ofcontingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.^[10] Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect beingtheology.^[11]

Theologians in theWesleyan tradition (seeThomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primaryattribute.^{[citation needed]} SomeHyper-Calvinist interpretations reject omnibenevolence.^{[citation needed]} For example, theWestboro Baptist Church is infamous for its expression of this stance.

Christian apologistWilliam Lane Craig argues that Islam does not hold to the idea of omnibenevolence.^[12]

Galatians 5,18–23 lists "kindness" among the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit God. So far, it is believed to be an attribute of God.

• Benevolence (disambiguation)
• Christian universalism
• Dystheism
• Good and evil
• Light and darkness
• Love of Christ
• Love of God
• Misotheism
• Omnipresence

• Basinger, David. "In what sense must God be omnibenevolent?"International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 14, No. 1 (March 1983), pp. 3–15.
• Bruch, George Bosworth.Early Medieval Philosophy, King's Crown, 1951. pp. 73–77.
• Flemming, Arthur."Omnibenevolence and evil".Ethics, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Jan. 1986), pp. 261–281.
• Oord, Thomas Jay.The Nature of Love: A Theology (2010)ISBN 978-0827208285
• Oppy, Graham. "Ontological Arguments and Belief in God" (Cambridge University Press) (1995), pp. 171–172.
• Smith, George H.Atheism: The Case Against God,(Skeptic's Bookshelf)Prometheus Books (June 1980).ISBN 978-0840211156
• Wierenga, Edward. "Intrinsic maxima and omnibenevolence."International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Vol. 10, No. 1 (March 1984), pp. 41–50.

• The Goodness of God
• Notes on God's Omnibenevolence