An Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God Cannot Exist

---2P1. The 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. Clearly we can see that the existence of evil disproves the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity, and I have fulfilled the entirety of my burden of proof.2P2. 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.