Formally? No, not really, I've just read about this and that. As far as I know, though, many thinkers have advanced and attacked many definitions of omnipotence under different points of view, relating it or not to the idea of an actual god, some even defending such "absolute omnipotence".

But it would seem to me that the main reasons to define it the way you talk about would be either to preserve logic, so as to be able to actually derive anything from it, or as a counter argument and deflect things like the stone paradox. My point was that I see no reason why we should impose - or really even expect - God to be bounded by logic, be it either because He abidies by it or because it's part of His very "nature" . I really can't see any a priori reason at all to expect that. If you can, please, I'm interested.

Besides, you speak of studying philosophy and theology, yet your initial argument about the impossibility of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being is as simple as possible and, I'm sure, has been tackled by any of the great thinkers who didn't see God as an impossibility or even believed on it's existence in some form or capacity.  To suppose that disproving theism, or even more specifically a Christian-like God, is by this very simple logic such an open and shut case is just preposterous.

As such I bet many, and much better, counter arguments can be found elsewhere, but here's a quick, probably way over-simplified, shot at one:

You seem to take "the good" as being an absolute, necessary and eternal quality, independent of God. That, by itself, can be seen as restricting God. Furthermore, you assume we're in a position to judge what "the good" consist of. One might, on the other hand, say that "the good" is contingent, at least in a sense, being precisely that which God wills, or that "the good" is that which conforms to the nature of God, or that we can't really define waht it is and isn't, thus removing the contradiction you proposed, if kind of tautologically, I guess.

Anyway, as I said before, I don't believe in any given kind of deity, but my broader point remains that I see no reason to expect logic (and, well, reason itself as we know it) to never break on any level of existence, infinitelly distant from our experience as it may be. Much less do I see any reason to believe or, worse yet, impose this to be necessarily the case.

(Just as an aside, a random quick though: another interesting way to argue against the impossibility of God is to notice that God and His properties might actually be impossible to even put in "words". Which I think is acutally consistent with Christian tradition, which says it's only through the Holy Spirit's guidance taht one can to truly understand the bibble. As in, you pretty much need a miracle of faith to even read about God)

The flaws in your argument are 6 and 7.  Your argument is tantamount to:

1) Parents love their children

2) Parents don't want their children to get hit by cars.

3) Parents know their children can get hit by cars if they leave the house.

4) Parents have the power to keep their children at home.

5) Parents who love their children don't let them leave the house.

Do you see the flaw there? You are making the assumption that if you have the motivation and the power, you can be lead to only a single conclusion. 

God created us with free will. Does he want us to be evil? No. But if he created us without the ability to make bad decisions, we'd be without free will. Just like parents allow their children to leave the house, even though it's less safe than being at home, he has given us the ability to decide our own fates. 

I am making an effort to understand, after reading your post a few times, because I'm not a professional in proof and logic.

@underlined. Given the conditions being what they are and not different, then it's more safe to assume that it was indeed fine-tuned  for the living organisms we see today. Otherwise, it would be like saying, in a crime scene, that the killer could have used a knife instead of a gun if in other conditions he could only find a knife. If he used a gun, then he didn't use a knife. The fact that he may have used a knife doesn't change the fact that he used a gun. So the conditions in the universe may have been different, but what we are certain of is that they are not different, they are what they are and that's the bottom line. That's what we go by, the actual state of the universe, not what could have been.

@italics. The idea is not to prove than humans are special, but when the parameters required for human existence are very precise it's enough to wonder if it was designed that way. There's not more to this. It becomes an even more nagging question if you see no truth to evolution and naturalistic explanations to life.

okay so no education on the topic, so you tout suppositions as counters? erm...you dont get logic do you? the extent of your counter to posted logic is "well im sure someone has argued against it, IT CANT BE SO SIMPLE" it is, why do you think philosophy is the field with the lowest amount of god believers? you cant inject reason into a faith position. doesn't work.

when you argue, you have to decide with which premise you disagree. if you accept the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily.

there are no "great thinkers" on the side of theim. you have ontological and cosmological arguments which purport some non-interventionist deity. no arguments even exist for personal gods because the idea is so silly and childish. 

nope, omnibenevolence is assigned as a trait by MANY christians (nothing about good is invoked in this argument). therefore it became an a priori truth. the argument simply uses the a priori truths as defined by christianity to argue that such a deity cannot possibly exist due to contradictions with reality.

then you reject Rationalism as a way to discover truth, which is fine. 

if you cant put it into words, you can't argue in favor of it and that reduces it to an argument from ignorance fallacy.

probably shouldnt even waste my time here as it will only give you another opportunity to present further piss poor arguments, but here we go. 

P1) A maximally Excellent being exists.

P2) A maximally Excellent being would create a maximally Excellent world.

P3) A maximally Excellent world would be the one best fine-tuned for its purpose.

P4) A maximally Excellent world best fine-tuned for its purpose would be one in which its purpose is maximally achieved.

P5) The purpose for this maximally Excellent world is human life.

P6) Humans are restricted to living on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, in one Universe.

C1) Such a world does not exist. P3 & P6.

C2) Such a being does not exist, C1 & P2.

This is an original argument, so there may be flaws not apparent to me. But I think it's quite concise and gets to the point.

It could, but it is highly unlikely. If I see a drawing in the middle of nowhere, say a picture on a barren beach, will I assume it came from random unintelligent processes?

You know the answer to that. You would have to make a serious effort to deny the obvious in order to convince yourself that that picture was not produced by a printer.

Also, even if patterns in the universe could generate the complexity of life as we know it (which is for all suits and purposes impossible), and honest thinker would have to wonder: why are there laws in the universe, why is there an order, a direction? Why gravity, why energy, why matter? What is the origin to it all?

The evolution story goes something like this: life arose from goo and evolved to you by the way of the zoo.

Is there any empirical, observational documentation of an organism population evolving camouflage abilities on the fly like an Indonesian Mimic Octopus or Anole Lizard? Or an organism evolve special clawed feet to walk vertically and upside down on all walls like an ant? Is their documentation of any creature population evolving feathers or a blow hole or gills? How about a fruitfly evolving glands to produce silk or a spineret or bioluminence abilities or anything of that sort?

How about an organism evolving antennas, a blow hole, gills, a shell, eyes, baleen plates, fluke, arms, legs, trunk, claws, ink dispersal abilities etc. ? Just any radical novel feature or ability would suffice.

You see, it takes radical changes to get a cell from goo to all the diversity of life we see today. But I have yet to see any documentation of at least one example of any organisms observed while occuring evolve such novel abilities or features. It seems that it is an assumption it happened but without the empirical evidence to back it up.

And if you didn't know, empirical, observational evidence is part of the scientific method. Thus if there is no empirical, observational evidence then it is not scientific:

" The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. *To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical* and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton 1999, pp. 794–6, from Book 3, The System of the World

Moreover can the story really be scientifically tested and repeated?

So is the evolution story really scientific?