“I just think it is reasonable to believe that the way things are is not as the Creator intended them to be.”
That rules out a creator’s omnipotence then.
“That rules out a creator’s omnipotence then.”
No it doesn’t. You need to reclassify the argument into two different categories, say a “strong omnipotence” and a “weak omnipotence” argument (though that sounds like an oxymoron, bear with me).
The “strong omnipotence” argument would be that God has omnipotence, the ability to accomplish anything, AND that anything God wants, is automatically accomplished.
The “weak omnipotence” argument would be that God has omnipotence, the ability to accomplish anything, BUT that God does not choose to automatically accomplish everything that He wants.
In this case, an imperfect world rules out only the strong omnipotence argument and not the weak omnipotence argument.
“That rules out a creator’s omnipotence then.”
Omnipotence does not mean God WILL always do whatever He CAN do.
He chooses to allow other sentient beings to also have choice (or, more broadly, autonomy and personal responsibility). And choice has consequences.
If He removes the consequences, then they are not consequences.
If He forces all choices, then they are no longer choices.
The existence or possibility of injustice or evil does not negate God’s omnipotence or His love or His goodness, as long as He has the ability to ultimately bring permanent, final, and complete resolution to these things.
In other words, the injustice, evil, pain etc. must be temporary.
But the negative side of this is that many will fall on the side of judgment rather than God’s goodness and mercy. What good is it for a person if God is omnipotent and good if that person does not benefit?
But the bottom line is that sin (whatever is contrary to God’s will) can and does exist without negating either God’s omnipotence (there is nothing God cannot do other than what He will not do) or His goodness.