Existence of god

The question at hand is whether god exists. I mean with god the common definition as a omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being. I am not here to discuss a wave of bible quotations as though they were fact (sadly that happens rather often), but rather to debate on the basis of actual argument. As in this case the burden of proof lies on the opposite site (you can't proof a negative), I would first be mainly interested to hear the arguments of my contender. But I won"t just say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (even though it is). I also want to point to the obvious empirical evidence, which we see in our universe and which doesn't align with the proposition of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient god, which cares about the human race in particular. I obviously know that in theism you can explain all of it away, by proposing why god would make it in this particular away, but so can everyone with every badly defined hypothesis, which theism is. It isn't hard to just say god is "mysterious" and then dismiss the data. This isn't a positive feature of theism, as it makes it unfalsifiable and therefore from the beginning a particularly bad hypothesis. First the problem of evil. Now I already expect the answer of "free will", which our loving god wanted to provide us with, so that we find him by ourselves (on basis of the worst possible evidence). But this argument doesn't work well with several of gods properties ascribed to him by theist. While omnipotence is in itself logically invalid (can he create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it), especially his omnibenevolence doesn't really show in our observable universe. The problem with the claim, that it is all for "free will" though, contradicts his omniscience, because, while in naturalism a free will most likely isn't possible (and it isn't observed in the brain either), it is absolutely certainly not possible with an omniscient god. To go even further, gods omniscience doesn't even work with his own free will. Let me explain. If god knows that he or anyone else is going to do something before they actually do it, they can't decide against doing it, because else he wouldn't have been omniscient in the first place. This especially applies to himself, for exactly the same reason. Therefore we can conclude that he either hasn't given us free will, which would raise the question of evil again (concluding he can't be omnibenevolent or omnipotent), or he can't be omniscient. As we conclude we can see, that he can't have any of his full powers, and would therefore raise the question, why we should call such a being god. Now let"s go to some clear observation of our universe and compare them to the prediction of theism, that god has built the universe for our live. Again you can argue away all of those point by gods mystery, but that isn't an explanation at all. What would be expect to observe for a universe according to the theistic hypothesis: God should be obvious or at least give some evidence for his existence which is compelling. This would align with the thought that he wants us to find him free (a freedom which isn't observed) and with his love for us, because he wouldn't want us to go to hell for the unnecessary crime of not believing in him. I think it is rather obvious, as this debate shows, that this isn't the case. Humans should be a rather important part of the cosmos and the cosmos should be mostly habitable. This again aligns perfectly with his love for us and also with his wish to bring about exactly us, as claimed by the theist and again it doesn't fit the data at all (we are very insignificant). Humans and organisms should be designed or at least be build by an absolutely fail proof mechanism, so that humans actually would be certain to arise. This again doesn't fit our observation of the twisted way humans evolved by the process of random mutation and natural selection, which isn't fail proof in any stretch of the imagination. Live should essentially be just, without random suffering, which would show gods benevolence, but as explained above, is again not observed. Under theism there should be one religion, which is given to everyone (there is no reason for god to choose one specific peasant tribe), and which has progressive sacred texts with actual information. Again I think it is rather obvious, that our sacred texts are all but progressive and rather mirror the tribal rules from 2000 years ago. To conclude we would expect under theism that there would be a perfect universe fitted for us, while under naturalism we would expect some kind of a mess. All together it is strong empirical evidence, which leads to the conclusion, that there is no god. I am looking forward to the arguments of pro.