The premises are correct because their rejection is paradoxical. Tell me which premise is incorrect, and I will show you how it’s rejection is impossible. So far, you’ve only focused on the premise that’s in relation to omniscience being meaningless, which I’ve addressed extensively.
You also brought in the concept of omnibenevolance as being problematic to a perfect being, which I addressed here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194327&start=25#p2709529
I’d say your use of the word infinite is wrong. Bear the following in mind when you read the rest of this post. You can never have two different things in the same place at at the same time. It would be paradoxical to say that you can. Bear the following key words/meanings in mind: Infinite (without beginning and without end) Semi-infinite (with a beginning but without an end) Finite (with both a beginning and an end)
The core argument+conclusion is as follows:
A) You can’t have two beings occupy the same place and time. B) You can’t have something come from nothing
This yields the following conclusion:
C) Only Existence is necessarily infinite in all dimensions. Any alternative to C will either lead to A or B or both. Try it, you’ll see.
Infinity has to be treated as a whole. It can’t be infinite in some dimensions whilst being finite or semi-infinite in others (absurdity B as you can’t have any dimension come from nothing or border non-existence) So it is necessarily infinite in all dimensions and can never be anything other than this and has never been anything other than this.
Bearing in mind A, no other being can be infinite in any dimension.
With regards to all dimensions, Existence is necessarily infinite. Consider time. You necessarily can’t have two infinite time lines as that amounts to A. But you can have two or more semi-infinite timelines within this infinite time line/dimension purely because an infinite time line allows for a semi-infinite amount of start points. Simply, this amounts to a semi-infinite amount of semi-infinite time lines. If there were no start points, then it’d be infinite and that would amount to A.
This applies to all dimensions. You can have a semi-infinite number of lines in/on any two dimensions. So long as it’s two dimensions or more and with a different start point, then no paradoxes occur.
If it’s two dimensions or more and with the same start point, then additional considerations go into place. Which I’ll discuss:
In a semi-infinite reality Q (one that’s semi-infinite in xyz and t, with start point Q = (QxQyQz and Qt)) you can have partially semi-infinite beings in relation to reality Q (beings that are Q-semi-infinite in some dimensions such as time, but Q-finite in other dimensions such as xyz, and you can have a semi-infinite number of these (let’s call them Q-immortals) Q-immortal beings.
Notice how I have attached Q to everything. It’s to signify that these immortals are all a part of this semi-infinite reality that is anchored/rooted in start point Q. All Q-immortals are somewhere on/equal to or after the start point QxQyQz Qt). No being in reality Q can be fully QxQyQz Qt because this amounts to paradox A. But you can have anything other than this. So you can have a semi infinite number of immortals that began when reality Q began. Call these Immortals Q1, and you can have this reality produce another set of immortals (the mechanisms of which don’t matter but let’s say some of the Q1 immortals gave birth to Q2 immortals) and so on semi-infinitely.
We talked about reality Q. Q is endlessly Q in xyz and t dimensions. It can produce partially semi-infinite Q-beings of its own as demonstrated with the Q-immortals. It can’t produce something that’s Q (xyz t) because that would amount to paradox A. Q-ness needs to separate all the things that it contains. But because Q-ness is endless, it can have an endless amount of Q anchored beings/realities. Amongst the things that it can contain: Anything that is less than/after than Q-ness, reality Q can accommodate.
Given what you’ve said in your previous posts, initially, to you it may look as though you can’t have a semi-infinite number of partially semi-infinite beings in reality Q that’s semi-infinite in the dimensions of space and time. It may look as though there’d be no room or space, but actually, there is. It ultimately amounts to this: There is endless space and time, so it can accommodate an endless number of spatially finite immortal beings. All these beings can be immortal (sharing this particular semi-infinite time line tied to reality Q). So long as both the reality that is semi-infinite in multiple dimensions and the immortal beings that inhabit it are anchored to the start point relative to Q, and the paradox of A is avoided, we’re well in line with the truth. That is the key difference between all beings/realities that are not God, and God. God necessarily has no start and no end point. Everything else necessarily has one (a start point) or both (a start point and an end point) in at least two or more of Existence’s/God’s dimensions.
That which is infinite can accommodate a semi-infinite number of these semi-infinite worlds. They all necessarily have to have a start point/tied/anchored in Existence/the infinite, but they don’t necessarily have to have an end point.
Semi-infinite = without end but with a beginning. The reason you can’t have an infinite number of beings is because there’s no room for such a possibility. The potential is not there. There’d be nothing to separate them. Everything must have at least two points in existence. If it didn’t have any points in Existence, then it would be Existence/infinity itself or absurdity/non-existence.
So that extensively addresses your misuse/misunderstanding of infinity.
With regards to God knowing what it’s like to not know something, we already discussed this extensively. A clear distinction was made between A) knowing x and not not knowing x at the same time (paradoxical) and B) knowing x and knowing what it’s like to not know x at the same time.
Circular but correct. Your misuse/misunderstanding of infinity make what you propose false/paradoxical/irrational.
I have addressed this.