Why is it nearly universally accepted that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent?
Well, if the entity we call God was not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then All That Is is bigger than this “God.” And, at that point, it is no great feat to concieve of an entity even greater than this limited God, who might have as attributes… oh, say omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Then Limited God becomes a minor player, a godling or demiurge, and the greater being becomes God.
Through rational inference, many have postulated that if there is a God, God must have those qualities that you list in order to be God. Those qualities are postulated to be the qualities proper to a divine nature (as distinguished from a finite, human nature). Further, these qualities are all indications that God transcends finite existence and nature– therefore God is not a being in the world, or even a “supreme being” but something so qualitatively different, that his nature can only be expressed by way of analogy– and these analogies are more dis-similar to the essence of who God is, than limits placed on his nature. To render God as somehow less than the qualities of that you list, including perfection and asiety, would render God less than divine– that is why they order the language that is used when some speak about God. Of course, this particular kind of conception of the deity is not universally accepted, and there have been other ways of thinking about God. I would highly
For concise answers to these questions i must refer you to the Basic Writings of St Thomas Aquinas. Although the ancient philosophers taught what is now ” universally” accepted, the reasons for it are clear in the Thomistic synthesis. A word of caution: There are a handful of terms used in scholastic metaphysics which are not formally defined up front in some of the writings of Aquinas. It’s possible to get their meaning from context but you might not get it all. Google scholastic metaphysics to locate commentators of St Thomas. If you want to do it right you’ll have to avoid the word bite explanations and decide for yourself by examining the Basic Writings and/or the Summa Theologica, because it’s all analysis.
You have an excellent point, and I agree with you that it is rather foolish of anyone to think that they can have such clear knowledge of a being that is so inaccesible to us. However, God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, and omnipresent. If you think that the ultimate being does not fit this description, you have every right to that opinion, but you should give that being a different name, because if you call it God people will assume you mean God as described above. It would be like saying “giraffe” when you mean “dog”- you would be using a word with one accepted definition to mean something else. The term “God” has an accepted definition, even if the actual ultimate being doesn’t fit that description.
