Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Mister Agenda]

It's entirely possible that a just deity could exist without me finding it.

If you mean by not finding it that there was no possible way for you to do so, then I beg to differ. A just deity, by definition, is just to its creatures, justness entails not leaving them lost in the most fundamental questions of life. What I see around me appears to imply design and care from a higher being, I am basically wired for belief. New understanding of natural processes through science doesn't change the fact that we tend to believe. This very fact should at least suggest to seriously looking for answers in revelation.
It will be dishonest for anyone to say he doesn't feel there are aspects of being taken care of in his life in some way.

A just deity doesn't have to be omnipotent, it has to be just and a deity. Maybe it's in another galaxy and doing the best it can with the worshipers it has over there. Maybe a just deity created us and died in the effort. There are other ideas of gods besides the tri-omni one.

Now a tri-omni God is ridiculous and does not exist, it falls apart under its own definition, attributes, and premises.

The problem of evil applies to a tri-omni God: if it's all-powerful and all-benevolent; it wouldn't create a universe with creatures capable of suffering. The existence of suffering is evidence against that version of God being real.

A tri-omni God knows all of it's future actions and because its knowledge is perfect, it can't do otherwise; but an omnipotent being could choose to do otherwise that it foresees...but if it does, it wasn't truly omniscient, it was wrong about what it was going to do.

Not to mention all the things I can do that a tri-omni God cannot: grow, learn, make mistakes, repent, be surprised, fail, doubt, and regret; a tri-omni being is the most alien creature imaginable. But it doesn't exist. It attributes are incompatible with each other. It's clearly the result of generations of religious people claiming their god is greater than anyone else's until they hit 'it knows everything and can do anything and loves everything more than anyone'.

I think we already discussed this point when talking about free will.
If you mean by all-benevolent all-loving, then no, this is not one of the attributes all major religions agree on. The three-omni properties generally refer to  : eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. Once stuff about love kicks in, which is essentially an attempt to anthropomorphise God, we can come up with all kinds of contradicitions, as is the case with the all-loving Christian God throwing Muslims to hell for eternal damnation. God in Islam is not all-loving, and this is explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an.
Three-omni God cannot grow? Sure. Growth already entails being incomplete, we grow to approach something, some limit, some higher state of existence. But for God there is nothing to grow for by definition. Not being able to grow is not a logical problem, it's wordplay again on the definition of God.
The same can be said about being surprised, failing, doubting, regreting ... These are all doings of human beings dealing with unknowable stuff - like the future, other people's thoughts, etc. For God there is again nothing unknowable, and God not being able to be surprised [lol] is again not a problem, it's simply you playing with the adjective "able" hoping to rule out his existence.

It's always amusing to see which leg of the tripod of theodicy a believer in that kind of God will try to saw off when pressed, and a little depressing when they decide they can do without the benevolence but absolutely have to save the omnipotence. You have just admitted the God you worship is not tri-omni, only 'bi-omni'. That's much more manageable and does away with the problem of evil; but an omniscient God still cannot have free will because it can not do other than it has foreseen that it will do, and it can't be omnipotent for the same reason; omnipotence requires free will. Since omnipotence seems the most important attribute to you, maybe slice a little bit off that omniscience. It's your character, you can edit it however you want.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know there's no God, I just think it's unlikely. The tri-omni God falls apart on close examination; the other versions of a creator God and the other gods are indistinguishable from campfire stories. For any god to be real, the supernatural also has to be real, and no supernatural claims have ever stood up to close scrutiny. The tri-omni God is impossible and the others have no evidence. The God of deism is the most coherent and it still lacks any evidence at all in support of its existence.

If you think the three-omni God concept  falls apart - I just explained that this is not the case - , then you are an atheist of the hard kind toward the God of all major religions. You are simply confirming the point of my post : we actually do take sides regarding the three omni god, since its attributes are so extreme he either is obviously there or obviously non-existent.

Yes I am, that's what I was saying about the Abrahamic God, glad you picked up on that; but you know that Buddhism and Hinduism are also major religions, right? The god of deism and the Greek gods are no more likely to be real than leprechauns (I don't eliminate the possibility entirely as they can't be proven not to exist) but the tri-omni God of Abraham as accepted by the more literal of the Abrahamic religion followers not only doesn't exist, it obviously doesn't exist (your objections don't make it not the case), because its proponents went way too far overboard on how great it's supposed to be.

Of course members of the Abrahamic religions don't believe all the same things in perfect harmony, the idea of God can vary between sects and some versions have the advantage of not being a contradictory pile of omni-attributes. In Open Theology, God does not pre-determine the future and therefore does not have direct foreknowledge of everything that's going to happen, leaving both God and humans free will and an 'open' future of possibilities in which God can be influenced by human actions and decisions. By limiting the omniscience, they get to keep the omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Their God does not will evil and God's intervention is not ruled out but their God rarely intervenes in the course of events and their God is not immutable and unchanging. Neither is the God of Process Theology, which is part of time, not outside of it. They limit God's omnipotence in that their God is not coercive, it never forces human behavior. Self-determination characterizes both God and humanity.

I don't believe in those Gods either, but at least those concepts don't immediately self-destruct and I kind of appreciate that they'd rather believe God has limits on God's power or knowledge than believe that there are limits on God's love.