God's existence--A different approach

As for "omnibenevolence", that is an empty concept. If you define God as good, then you have a tautology but you don't have a definition. Any entity would be "omnibenevolent" if "good" were defined to be what that entity does.
If you want to use that word to define "God", you must find a definition of "good" that is independent of "God".

I don't think omnibenevolence was supposed to be a definitive part of God, but rather a religious attempt at self-advertising (all God does is good, therefore you must live in his example). I'm not too concerned about this myself. It's just there as part of the whole package.

As for the contradiction mentioned above, let's look at it this way (I have to leave in 5 minutes but I think I can rephrase it so that I can work on it later):

- God, supposing he does experience his own kind of 'time', has to ultimately make a decision about the raindrop's whereabouts.
- Therefore he is capable of knowing where it ultimately falls.
- The contradiction would ultimately rest in the rhetorical question: "Can God make the raindrop fall where he doesn't know it would?" which I think is nonsense. There is something structurally flawed about these questions as opposed to formal premise-conclusion arguments, but I can't quite work it out formally.

EDIT: And yes, it is my goal here to recreate all sorts of arguments already made.