Epicurean Paradox

[Perhaps]

"Benevolence" and "evil" are conceptual attributes. They do not have any existence outside consciousness, neither do any other conceptual entities. So, if you are talking about their existence outside our consciousness, you are talking about them independent of mind, which is simply nonsensical.

That's a slippery slope to walk on. What defines a conceptual attribute? Furthermore, by what evidence do we acknowledge that benevolence and evil only exist within the conscience? Surely our ideas as to what benevolence and evil look and act like are only within our minds, but how does it follow that only our 'benevolence' and our 'evil' exist?

It is not fine if it is at the root of the debate. Unless you can establish why any supposed god would be beyond human concepts of good and evil, the Epicurean paradox would still apply.

The very idea of God is beyond human concepts, this is what I've been referring to about the deeper ideas behind abstractions. We can self define abstractions, but the very nature of the abstraction itself is beyond our grasp to understand or fathom. Once again, if I ask you what is infinity and what does it look like, or similarly, what does infinite transparency 'look' like, you could attempt to analogize or illustrate an image to me, but that wouldn't capture the very idea of the abstraction itself.