The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[SteveII]

You are not providing arguments that it is illogical, you are arguing that it is improbable.

Probability doesn't come into it.  It's all terminology and deductive logic.  An omnipotent god (one who can do anything except violate logic) can achieve any three goals that do not logically contradict each other.  Knowing a god, having free will, and being happy are not logically contradictory.  Therefore, an omnipotent god could do all three.  An omniscient god would know how to do all three.  An omnibenevolent god (assuming we define those three things as good) would choose to achieve all three.  Therefore, in any world in which these three things are not achieved, tri-omni gods do not exist.  

Feel free to show me where I injected statistics and probability into that.  

It all comes down to your position that omnibenevolence = obligation to use all means to avoid anything that isn't good.

I deny and repudiate that argument.  By now you know that it is a misrepresentation.  I do not see gods as obligated in any way. 

Okay, so I am not clear on something. My amended understanding of your argument that you are making has three underlying assumptions: 

1. If God is omnipotent, then he can create any world he desires,
2. If God is omnibenevolent then he must actualize a world without suffering, and 
3. If God is omniscient then he would know how. 

My misunderstanding centers around 2. I think if your position is as I wrote it, it contradicts 1. I then assumed (incorrectly) that then you were making the weaker claim (a probabilistic argument) that given the tri-omni properties we should see a world without suffering (you used phrases like "would choose").

So, what exactly do you mean? Does omnibenevolence entail that God must choose no suffering (logical route)? Or are you okay with the weaker claim "should" choose no suffering (probabilistic route)?