Why isn't he a dictator if he's omnibenevolent? The wise and just benevolent dictator is the optimal form of government for as long as it lasts, the problem being that the next dictator might not be so benevolent. But with a god, that's not a concern. So why isn't this god leading mankind?
2) He respects people's free will
Why? Their will doesn't seem too respectable, gets many of them into trouble, and creates suffering for others. Why would a good god allow that if it had the power to do better? The best parent instills the best values he or she can into his or her children. Why doesn't this deity do the same if it exists and can do that? There is no good reason.
3) He hopes they can choose the party of Good by themselves
Why? Why not choose for them? What good can come of granting people not only the ability to be malicious, but also the drives to do so? None.
The problem the skeptic has is that you've just described a godless universe, but want to say that there is a god anyway who makes choices indistinguishable from what would be the case if it didn't exist. Of course we aren't subject to nonhuman dictators. Of course we have wills. Of course we have proclivities directing us to do what a crocodile or lion would do that will manifest despite higher centers attempting to tame these instincts. Of course some people will not contain the animal. These things are all expected in a godless universe, but cannot be accounted for assuming a tri-omni deity except with weak, just-so arguments like those.
Skeptics are telling you why they don't believe such a deity exists. The deity you described does nothing, and could be said about any nonexistent entity. It's true for Superman, too. He doesn't dictate much or interfere with free will.
There is no reason for the critical thinker to believe this tri-omni god with the same characteristics as the nonexistent exists, so he doesn't. That's the skeptic's argument. And as I've posted a few times lately, with atheism, a whole raft of enigmas such as this one just evaporate away, which I understand as meaning that that is the correct position to hold.
It's a pretty common occurrence that when people choose to believe something incorrect and double down on it in the face of conflicting evidence and argument, they are forced to come up with dozens of just-so answers for why the evidence fails to support or contradicts the erroneous belief that all go away when the correct position is adopted instead. Why is there useless suffering? Easy for an atheist. Why is the Genesis account so different for the scientific account? The theist needs pages to come up with his apologetics, but the atheist expects myths to be wrong. Why does scripture appear to contradict itself in places? That's another exercise in verbal gymnastics for the believer, but entirely expected by the unbeliever. Repeatedly, theistic doctrine creates problems that atheism solves.
Consider Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage. In case you haven't seen it, here it is.
A man claims "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. The man counters every physical test proposed with a special, just-so explanation of why it won't work. Your argument above looks very much like that one. Solution? Since this dragon has exactly the same characteristic of a nonexistent dragon, call it that, and all the problems just evaporate away. Of course there's nothing see, feel, or measure. That's what nonexistent means.
Consider Occam's Razor - the simplest narrative that accounts for all relevant observations is preferred. No god is much simpler than an undetectable god with several dozen qualities that keep it undetectable, like the invisible dragon
Also, I'll leave you with this quote from a man named Edward Abbey: "
When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense"
