An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist

---2P1: Logical Problem of EvilThe Logical Problem of Evil attempts to draw a contradiction between the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity and the existence of evil, such that only one or the other can exist in a given reality. P1. From definition, an omnipotent entity can perform any action. P2. From definition, an omnibenevolent entity would remove as much evil as possible. P3. From P1-2, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil. P4. From P1-3, if an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, then evil does not. A1. Assume temporarily that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists. P5. From P1-4 and A1, evil does not exist. P6. From observation, evil exists. C: P6 and P5 form a contradiction; A1 is false, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity does not exist. The existence of evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity. Because we cannot reject the existence of evil, we must reject the existence of an omnipotent entity.2P2: The Paradox of OmnipotenceThe Paradox of Omnipotence attempts to prove that it's impossible for an entity to truly be omnipotent, because an omnipotent entity would have to be able to limit itself; however, because it is limitable, it is also not omnipotent. A few variations on the theme:Theme 1: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? " -- RationalWikiIf yes: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone. If no: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone. Theme 2: "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? " -- Homer SimpsonIf yes: Jesus's power is limited, because he cannot eat the burrito. If no: Jesus's power is limited, because it cannot microwave the burrito. As such, an omnipotent god cannot possibly exist.2P3: Burden of ProofMy opponent has the Burden of Proof to prove that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, because not believing so is the default position in the lack of evidence, because it is the least complex worldview. Let"s look at this through Occam"s Razor. Definition of Occam"s Razor: "[A]mong competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. " [M]ore complicated solutions may " prove correct, but"in the absence of [evidence]"the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. The " principle " shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power," Wikipedia [2]. In a worldview where an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity does not exist, fewer assumptions are made than in any worldview where one does. For example, contrast a Pro universe and a Con universe. Pro: "The universe exists. "Con: "The universe exists, and an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists. "In both worlds, both people assume that the universe exists. However, only in the Con universe do we, additionally, assume that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists. However, without proof, you should not accept the Con worldview, because it makes unproven assumptions. A similar scenario is given below:Aunicornism: "The universe exists. "Unicornism: "The universe exists, and unicorns exist. "Clearly one would not accept that the default position is that unicorns exist, and that one must disprove the existence of unicorns in order to not believe in them. This is because we use Occam's Razor in our lives to choose the most simple explanation for events, rather than inventing crazy theories to describe everyday events. The same holds true for religion and philosophy. Thus, the Pro makes fewer assumptions, and must be assumed true unless a theory with more explanatory power is proven correct. Thus, the Burden of Proof of my opponent is to prove that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, which would prove that the Pro position does not have enough explanatory power and must be rejected for a more powerful explanatory theory.