God would kill himself for sucking so much, if he wasn't catatonic.
The attribute of omniscience; knowing all things, simultaneously. In such a state, the privacy of other minds would not exist. Though one could say that knowing the thoughts of another person doesn't dissolve their identity, knowing all future thoughts would. A lack of surprises would be equivalent to a lack of separation; a lack of identity. The processes of discovery, of constantly checking the current state of things against remembered states of things, by which we gauge our presence in the world around us -- how could this exist for a being for which there can be no such discovery? Even a person in solitary confinement has walls by which to measure their existence, and a person in a sensory deprivation chamber hopefully entered with some prior thoughts and sense of themselves. Would thoughts even be possible for an omniscient creature, let alone identity? We could not exist for such a being, and nor could anything in such a state be considered a mind. Knowing everything would destroy the senses. It's only by arbitrarily limiting the idea of omniscience, and therefore contradicting it, that it doesn't seem absurd.
If a god is the prime mover, and a god is omnipotent and ominpresent, that means that all of existence is merely the result of this god's direct intervention; there would be nothing but the continued effort of this god. There would be no distinct physical reality to continue without a god's effort. And, since this god also knows everything, there is never a distinction between acting and knowing. Without anything that isn't god, god's existence becomes an undifferentiated nothingness. One would wonder how such a being could exist, let alone be conscious or have the motivation to create anything. What would be the point of creating anything? Discovery?! of what?! impossible!
The believers in the room are going to quibble that this isn't their description of a god. It's some people's -- I didn't make this stupid shit up -- but not everyone's. But this distinction is at its best a variation on some ad hoc, the conclusion to some logic game. It's easy for us to speculate, because there's nothing to settle it. It's like -- no, it is, for all practical purposes, an argument about the nature of a complete fiction. The creator of the universe is granted so many wildly varying qualities by adherents, but the most important one to their case is the predominance of its subtlety whenever questions of any substantiation arise.