The Christian God does not exist

Thank you for your argument, I'll tackle them in the originally ordered form to keep consistent with my own post. I will still label the arguments.I. The problem of evilI like where you went with this, but you misinterpreted what I was saying. " he believes God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil (or what we perceive as evil) to exist. I'd like to ask you, Tyler, how could you possibly know this?"I did not mean God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. A lot of people might mean that when proposing the problem of evil. I'll start by defining omnibenevolence (As is the basis for this argument) to show you what I mean when proposing the problem of evil.The common definition for omnibenevolence is "all good". That's extremely subjective, and under that definition, you're completely right, but after looking further into the definition...1. Omnibenevolence is better defined as "infinitely benevolent".2. Benevolence is the "disposition to do good"3. Disposition is a habit, a preparation, a state of readiness, or a tendency to act in a specified way.4. Good is morally right, or "morally positive". Evil is morally wrong, or "morally negative".5. This sets Good as a complete moral objective opposite to evil.6. So, Omnibenevolence is the infinite tendency to do the exact opposite of evil.With this in mind, it's worthy to note that I don't need to justify God's moral reason for not allowing evil, I merely need to accept the given that God is Omnibenevolent, and we did such that in the round of acceptance.As is such, God must eliminate all evil, not due to moral reasoning, but his omnibenevolence. I agree, that without that trait, God might have some reasoning to keep evil, to teach us a lesson, or something of the sort, but the fact of the matter is, the God we are discussing is Omnibenevolent, and that makes him have to eliminate all evil, morally just or not.II Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive&&III Omnipotence and Logic are mutually exclusiveI'm going to respond to both of your rebuttals in one as the second was, "just an extension of the previous argument's flaws".Your whole rebuttal was based upon the fact that my third premise,3. The Christian God has the power to do something logically impossible.didn't derive from the actual definition of omnipotence. However, omnipotence means many things, such as"A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, "Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...The interesting thing is, you debunk the claim of premise 3 by stating that the notion that God can do something illogical is completely absurd, and ironically, that's the claim that I make as well in premise 4 and 5!That fact that, according to the definition of Omnipotence, God can do something logically impossible, is illogical. It's "meaningless babble" as you put it.This becomes apparently clear if we take premise 3-4 and instead of saying "logically impossible", put in your example of something that's logically impossible, "Can God create a round square?"3. The Christian God has the power to do create a round square4. To assert a being can create a round square, is illogical.The differentiating differences of definitions you used, between absolute omnipotence, and common omnipotence, is significant. But I cannot find an official place where the use of "common omnipotence" is the true way of defining God. When getting right down to it, people do believe that God is all absolutely powerful. At least the people I ask. If you have an official source that talks of common omnipotence, then we can settle this as a draw of definitions. But I do believe that only the absolute omnipotence is what people mean when they describe God, not common omnipotence.Although I feel that I have made sufficient justifications to my claims now, you surprised me. No one has ever written such a logical argument to deny that God does not exist. I am looking forward to your future arguments.Lastly, the following still holds true,"Only a single one of these arguments needs to be valid for my assertion that 'The Christian God does not exist' to be valid as a whole."