Omnibenevolance is often defined as all-loving or infinitely good. If this contributes to Existence existing perfectly, then it is a necessary trait. If not, then it’s irrelevant to the definition of true perfection.
Let’s be rational ahead of being emotional. With that in mind, consider the following:
The problem of evil is cited as being irreconcilable with Existence being perfect. Let’s break down why this happens and then assess whether it’s a meaningful argument or not.
I will start with the outline or conclusion: Existence being perfect and doing perfectly is something that is known via pure reason (see previous posts on the nature of Existence). How it does perfectly is something that pure reason dictates to be unknown to us because we lack omniscience. Essentially this means:
For there to be a counter argument to Existence doing perfectly, there’d have to be an objective instance of something not existing as maximally well as it can exist. For us to establish an objective instance of something existing not as maximally well as it can exist, we’d have to have full knowledge of it and its world and everything that relates to it including its future. Everything in Existence is connected or related in some way. So ultimately, we’d require omniscience to establish an objective instance of something not existing as maximally well as it can exist.
Simply put: 1) omniscience is required to know if something is not existing as well as it can do, and 2) no being can become omniscient from a non-omniscient state. Therefore 3) We as non-omniscient beings can never rationally establish an instance of something not existing as well as it can exist. It would be paradoxical. Since 3 is taken for granted and empiricism is paradoxically treated as such that it can override that which is known apriori, I will address 3 in more detail.
It is paradoxical to say something like P: All things considered, it is hypothetically impossible for Q to amount to a maximally good outcome.
Here’s why:
Can P be demonstrated without omniscience? No. We lack omniscience which means we cannot consider all things. Can we ever become omniscient? No. Therefore P is clearly absurd. It’s not even an unknown where we’d be able to say something like perhaps one day we’ll be in a position where we can demonstrate P. We will never be able to demonstrate P and where we might have thought we did, we were clearly being irrational.