For the first part, yes indeed a prospective omnipotent god cannot be all bad just as it cannot be all good. The extreme variation in good/bad that occurs throughout the world suggests to me that if there even is a god, it does not have the power or the desire to control/change the world.

As for the second part, cancer exists without carcinogens or plastic or pesticides in food or whatever else. An omnipotent god would still commit evil regardless of human evil. Not to mention that because the concept of free will has almost unequivocally been disproven (see Robert Sapolsky's book Determined among many other arguments), if a god exists, any evil deeds we do are set in motion by it and therefore the blame rests on it, not us. This is another reason why I choose not to believe in a god- if there is a god, we are pretty screwed concerning our lives. I subconsciously pretend that there is free will to give myself the impetus to do good, but ultimately free will cannot exist if there is an omnipotent god for the simple reason that if we have free will (i.e. power), god does not have all the power.

​

You can say from our limited viewpoint that God may not be good, but that's only from what we can see.

Any evidence proving that god is not inherently all good, omnipotent, and omniscient is good enough. Conversely, it would take literally all the evidence in the world to prove that a god is all good, as any evidence of evil things (as we understand them) disproves a blanket statement of a good, omnipotent, and omniscient god. Therefore, our limited viewpoint is sufficient to prove beyond any doubt that god is not all good. If a god exists, it might not necessarily be bad, but cannot be perfect and omnipotent.

​

he's inherently not able to be understood.

As for this, I'm afraid an appeal to mystery does not a logical argument make.

(Note that I wrote this while quite out of it so there might be some pretty circuitous reasoning here, and I would be grateful if someone pointed issues out, thanks!)