It is possible for a tri-omni god to coexist with the evil which exists in this World.

P1 - The Perpetuity of EvilAs "evil" is a word, it is a means of describing the perceived world. By nature, the word is non-specific and comparative, and is dependent upon the observing individual to assign qualitative differences. "Evil" is defined as "profoundly" wicked or immoral. Profound means, " very great or intense" [1], which is also a comparative term without a solid definition, hence, left as a subjective qualifier for the term by the observer. In essence, "evil" is a label that exists only in the mind of the observer.Let's consider this statement of yours:"Indifference to the suffering of others could be considered one level; deliberately seeking the suffering of others is another level."This is an example of comparison. If the latter was removed from possibility by said OOO being, than the former would have nothing worse to be compared it to. It would then be the most profound evil possible by the "new" reality, and would qualify for the definition of evil. The goalposts will always be shifted if the 'field' (reality) is changed.Let's consider another phrase you mentioned:"One individual causes another individual (or a group of individuals) to suffer a fate worse than death."The statement casts judgment upon a subject in a direct comparison to the solidly-defined status of death. It is almost a necessity for us to base our means of judgment (which is flexible) upon a solid grounding (something maximally inflexible). "A fate worse than death" directly compares the current subject with death (or murder to suit our definition of "evil"), so it applies to any subject that the observer judges to be worse; everyone will not agree on what warrants this phrase.If every possibility of something that fits this phrase were removed from reality (i.e. extreme torture), then death (or murder) will become the ultimate evil, because there is nothing worse that could happen. This would invalidate the original phrase indicating that it is evil by comparison. If death was removed from reality, then we would not even be able to reference that because it lies outside of our realm of perceivable possibility. The comparison would have to be based on a different, perceived foundation.We cannot deny that, in this world, there are "evils" we *can* imagine that are impossible. Or, at least we perceive them as impossible. For instance, torturing someone to death, bring them back to life, and torturing them to death again. Rinse (thoroughly) and repeat. These things would only be impossible if an OOO being *chose* to make them impossible. By choosing what is possible in creating reality, the being is also choosing what is *not* possible, since possibility is ultimately a dichotomy. Hence, there are infinitely more excessive evils that are already prevented, many of which we cannot even imagine.In conclusion, evil cannot be permanently removed from any world without destroying that world. Therefore, *some* degree of evil *must* exist, since "evil" is comparative. By virtue of this, only an omniscient being would know the absolutely perfect degree of evil (omnibenevolent) to prevent from existing (employing omnipotence). Therefore, an OOO being can, and must, coexist with evil.P2 - Argument from IrrelevanceI shall concede that no degree of suffering is irrelevant to an omnibenevolent being, as such as being would be perfectly good. And I do concede that an omnibenevolent being would not permit the existence of a negative afterlife such as Hell. ~glancing over at the Bible~Now, let's move onto this statement:" Personally, I wonder: if there is such a tri-omni god and there is a heaven... why aren't we all already just in heaven? "Do you notice how everything is being removed from existence until there is one logical possibility left? First Hell, then the mortal realm? If an OOO *must* perform the perfect action, then all possibilities are removed from existence but ONE, which essentially destroys the very existence of benevolence in the process. A benevolent being is ONLY benevolent if non-benevolent possibilities exist. Therefore, an OOO being can, and must, coexist with non-benevolent possibilities.Note that P2 has reached essentially the same conclusion as P1, so I don't think it is necessary to separate them, anymore.To answer your question: I do not believe that we live in the best possible world (or instant). However, that is determined by my limited judgment of my perception of reality. I cannot say for certain if I am correct without being omniscient. . Blurry Definition of Evil You have done quite well in avoiding referring to "death" and "suffering" as evil, but rather, the act of causing them. In case you were unaware, the Problem of Evil is accreditied to the philosopher, Epicurus [2], and he defined evil as pain and suffering in general, either physically or mentally. Since this is the foundation of this notion, you can refer to these things as evil if it is easier.Re: Joke [Not part of this debate]Very nice - I do like that one. I got a 'rise' out of it. (that's a clever reference to your other debate.)[1] Oxford Dictionary: Profound - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] Wikipedia: Epicurus - http://en.wikipedia.org...