In the philosophy of religion, the discussion of God is often centered on the omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence of God and the compatibility of those attributes with each other and the laws of nature and reason. These are the widely accepted attributes of God by both philosophers and theologians alike.
An attempt to find the source can be made by citing religious Canon. Here are some often cited examples from the Torah:
"Thus says the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
"I know that you can do every thing, and that no thought can be withheld from you."
"Ah Lord God! behold, you have made the heaven and the earth by your great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for you:"
"Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?"
I don’t think this approach is valid for many reasons. It reinforces these attributes in part, but our current conception of them is far from a direct quote from the Torah. Modern religious study has convincing evidence, and it is the widely accepted view in the professional field of Jewish studies, that the Torah as it exists today is not the revelation of God to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Documentary Hypothesis exposes that the Torah is a compilation of works by four different groups of authors: the Yahwists (J), the Elohist (E), the Deutoronomist (D), and the Priestly source (P). The earliest estimates of the time period in which the first source, the Yahwists, were writing are around 950 B.C.E. This was one thousand years after the supposed authorship of the Torah by Moses. It seems that in our philosophical study, we should be bounded by these rational and logical historical findings. Therefore, we cannot accept these attributes without first proving them. The New Testament is an even more recent human conscription, the theological developments in the later books of Jewish canon and interpretation by rabbis are all based on the Torah, which has been undermined by the Documentary Hypothesis. It seems that there aren’t any sources of valid authority behind the claims that God is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
My opinion is that these are human ideas that have developed and become entrenched in the discussion that need to be uprooted. One explanation as to how these attributes became the norm is that they were an attempt to explain in understandable or general terms the unfathomable power and perfection of God. These attributes are what I consider to be infinite attributes, meaning that it would be impossible to go any further than these in regards to what they pertain to. This is the same concept as infinity, in that there is no such thing as infinity plus one. There is no greater power, conscience, or benevolence that is greater than these attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence. It seems that a human conception of perfection would be tied to these infinite attributes. In reality, we can prove that these attributes are contrary to each other and the world as we experience it, so they are not in reality the components of perfection. The incapability of people to conceptualize the attributes of God does not necessarily mean that those attributes must be boundless or infinite.
I think that beginning philosophical discussion with these attributes of God as assumptions bears the risk that the entire discussion may be based on a false claim. However, I’m not sure where the discussion should begin. A possibility is to begin with the attempt to logically prove that these attributes must belong to God to show that the assumptions on which further discussions are based are correct. Any discussion or conclusions based on invalid assumptions are fruit from a poisonous tree.