Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Mister Agenda]

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.

I am curious to know your definition of a deity and its exact attributes. Because ruling out omnipotence is a big one. I suppose though that this deity you're talking about is the same deity that created us. And it would be awkward for this very deity not to be able to reach us.
A mortal deity is a useless concept that is not worth pursuing. Why? Because its existence is something of the past, even if provable, it has no bearing on our lives because, again, it's dead.

I agree we can imagine all kinds of deities. But it's an exercise in futility to investigate deities that can't interfere with us in any imaginable way, because, whether they exist or not, there is no reason for us to care.

The usual definition of 'god' is fine by me: a superhuman divine being or spirit worshiped for its supernatural powers. If I capitalize it, I'm talking about one of the 'created the universe' ones. Why would a just deity necessarily be the one that created us if we were created by any deity at all? Maybe the god of clay molded us out of river sediment and the god of justice handles all the 'being just' aspects of reality. Myths are very malleable, and so are deities, their backgrounds and attributes depend largely on what people want them to be. Maybe the gods of clay and justice are still with us and actively participating in human affairs without being obvious about it; and we'd get more justice and better ceramics if we prayed to them instead of the wrong gods. If you only want to talk about Gods, that's fine, but you have no authority to say lesser superhumanly powerful immortal beings don't count as gods.

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. 

I don't see how keeping omnibenevolence will releave your depression either. Is it acceptable to you that a God loves - unconditionally, mind you - a person who murdered entire families, conducted rapes and genocides with no remorse?
Is it conceivable in any imaginable way that God loves the likes of, say, Ted Bundy or Henry Lee Lucas unconditionally?

Jesus said to love your enemy. I've seen people who can manage that, surely God can if he wants to.

The Qur'an explicitly mentions the problem:
[4:18] : The Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of God, and His beloved.” Say, “Why then does He punish you for your sins?” In fact, you are humans from among those He created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and what lies between them, and to Him is the return.

The very existence of punishment is not reconcilable with omnibenevolence. The latter is merely an extension of motherly tenderness, nothing more. It's the product of our imagination. That's why the Christian belief is competely nonsensical, his advocacy for omnibenevolence is actually a symptom of an altered, corrupt doctrine. It's very simple and straightforward : those who deserve love are loved, those who don't, aren't. Unconditional love is something sweet to sing about, but it doesn't make sense.

God can't have 'motherly tenderness'? God can't exert just punishment and still love the one that unfortunately has to be punished? I would agree that God can't love the object of unjust eternal torture (that's obviously either preternatural hatred or superhuman pettiness); but punishment and love are not mutually exclusive. Sounds like your God's version of love is very limited and ordinary. Not the sort of God you'd worship out of love, the sort you'd worship out of fear in order to placate. I suppose that might turn into a Stockholm Syndrome type of quasi-love.

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 think you're forgetting what free will means in the first place. From Wiki we have : "Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded". It doesn't include regretting a decision made in the past, which is what you are supposing implicitly. For you argument to work, God needs to second guess a decision he made freely, and second-guessing has nothing to do with free will. You just want to stick a bad attribute to God as you were doing before when you mentioned being surprised, learning, growing, etc. Again, you're anthropomorphising God to rule him out of existence.
Now, it's true an omniscient God can't do other than it has foreseen. Is that a problem? As long as he didn't change his mind about what he decided, there is none. And being able to change mind is specific to us feeble humans.
God also can't feel sorry for itself, can't feel guilt, can't get tired, can't feel hungry, etc.  You can see now I think the problem with your reasoning.

If you're never able to change your mind, in what sense is your will free? You forgot about the part of free will where you're free to make a different choice. An omniscient being literally cannot make a different choice, all of its choices were predetermined. No thought or decision making is involved, the moment you are omniscient with regard to the future, that's the moment all of your choices are set in diamond.

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.

As explained above, infinite love is much more problematic than infinite power, and more importantly, it doesn't make any sense, because it's obviously a pure product of the human mind, something we spice up to make the concept more attractive. Why some tend to think omniscience is impossible is only because of its subtle meaning, there is nothing wrong about it logically. 

Of course the idea of God varies for every belief out there. But nobody really takes a god with half-baked attributes seriously, because its existence (or non-existence) doesn't change anything in anybody's life. Only the tri-omni just god does, because then his existence implies necessarily that he gave us clues about himself, and created us for a purpose. He's also the only concept of god against which you had real  objections. His existence is verifiable in some way. If we do that, there is nothing more to be done regarding the god question.

It's all a pure product of the human mind, at least the ones who believe in God's love are being kind of sweet. Everyone who believe in a god takes a god with half-baked attributes seriously, because they're all half-baked. None of the supposed gods or Gods changes anything in anybody's life except for the psychological effect on their attitudes and actions; because they're all imaginary or might as well be because none of them have an existence that is verifiable in any rational way. They're all only as real as their followers belief in them. There is nothing to be done with the god question because there either aren't any gods or they are completely undetectable.