This is a passage from The Doors of The Sea, by David Bentley Hart that I read this morning--
They seem to take issue, after all, with a God of their own devising. Rosenbaum, for example, mentions a somewhat famous article by J.L. Mackie from 1955 that argues that we must conclude from the evidence of history and nature that if God is indeed omnipotent, he manifestly is not good, and that if he is good, he manifestly is not omnipotent.
It is an argument, says Rosenbaum, that so far no one has succeeded in refuting. In point of fact, though, there is no argument here to refute; the entire case is premised upon an inane anthropomorphism- abstracted from any living system of belief- that reduces God to a finite ethical agent, a limited phychological personality, whose purposes are measurable upon the same scale as ours, and whose ultimate ends for his creatures do not transcend the cosmos as we perceive it. This is not to say that it is an argument without considerable emotional and even moral force; but of logical force there is none.
Unless one possesses a divine, eternal vantage upon all of time, unless one knows the precise nature of the relation between divine and created freedom, unless indeed one can fathom infinite wisdom, one can draw no conclusions from finite experience regarding the coincidence in God of omnipotence and perfect goodness. One may still hate God for worldly suffering, if one chooses, or deny him, but one cannot in this way "disprove" him.
The Doors of The Sea, p.13-14.