The Problem of Evil is Sound

Thank you for your swift response. THERE are two ways that I have formulated the argument, as both ways are sound and basically the same; though different wording. If God exists, then by definition he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If the above proposition (that God exists) is true, then unjustified evil (or suffering) will not occur. However, unjustified evil will occur. Therefore, proposition 1 is probably false. My partner has called me out on a mistake that I have not defended the proposition that "If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil." This is the wording that I have in round 1. So, why do I make such a proposition? Let's consider the facts:1. Omnipotent - God has the power to eliminate suffering and evil.2. Omnibenevolent - God will have the moral desire to eliminate suffering and evil.3. Omniscient - God knows when suffering occurs.IS EVIL AND GOD INCOMPATIBLE?My partner asks that a good being eliminates evil insofar as he can and that there are no limits to what a omnipotent being can do. Why should we accept both propositions? Because by definition, God is omnipotent meaning that he has all power. The word omnipotent means all-power; hence if God is omnipotent, he has the power to eliminate evil. Moreover, if God was morally perfect and omnibenevolent, then by definition of necessity, God will want to have the desire to eliminate evil.Next, to say that it's logically possible that God has morally sufficent reasons for permitting horrendous evils is akin to saying that maybe Adolf Hitler had justifiable reasons for committing his heanous deeds. It is ridiculous. Let's look again at what Paul says that God is [1]:4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.-1 Corinthians 13:4-7, NIV.Because God is suppsedly love, then by the very definition of love, he is kind. Therefore, he will not allow unecessary suffering to occur."What about (b)? It is logically possible that God cannot create significantly free creatures who never sin. Again, even if this is logically possible, it alone negates the conclusion that God and evil are incompatible."The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish worldview presupposes the existence of a heaven. Consequently,it concedes that it is possible for God to create a situation wherein free agents would always choose to do good."We must distinguish between logically-possible worlds and feasible worlds for God to create. While a sin-free human world is logically/theoretically possible, it may not be feasible for God to create it since it is up to humans to respond to God's grace and love." Why can't it be feasible? God is omnipotent; therefore anything is possible and feasible for God. Likewise, I believe the concept of heaven negates such a wordlview (see above for explanation). NATURAL EVIL I have brought up the point of natural evil; namely, evil brought upon humans by nature. My partner says that phenomena such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes sever important functions for earth. For a moment, let's concede this point. What then? Well, because God is omnipotent it can be accomplished in ways that don't involve suffering on the part of humans.CONCLUSIONWhat are we to make of such an argument? "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" — Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion ___________________Footnotes1. Remember, we are talking about a Judeo-Christian type God. Therefore, definitions that are brought up in any religious texts are permitted.