An omni-god can avoid the problem of evil

Again, I bring up his omniscience and omnipotence. I believe our universe being the best of all possible alternatives is inherent in my opponents argument since he postulated a god that created the universe and omniscience and omnipotence are two of three necessary conditions in order to call him god. Since the best of all possible universes is inherent in my opponents argument and we are here to discuss the universe we come up with:P1. This is the best of all possible universesP2. Our existence is evident since we are here to discuss these issuesC. Therefore we live in the best of all possible universesThe problem here is premise 1, we do not live in the best possible universe. That is the point of the problem of evil is that there are better possible universes. Universes that do not include things like Child Rape and holocaust. In order to deny this, you must believe a universe without these 2 things would be worse. This is especially troubling with a all powerful god who could easily reconcile any problem that arose from the universe being this way. The syllogism goes like this:If a omni-god who fit this definition existed we would be in the best possible universe. We can conceive of better possible universesConclusion the omni-god does not exist otherwise we would live in one of our conceived better universes. My opponent then goes onto variations of freewill. Now with freewill we must remember that this god is the creator of the universe. He knows all, so he had forsight to what would happen with freewill and certain physical attributes. My opponent is limiting gods ability to design us with freewill but not the ability to rape children or pull off the holocaust. Afterall, if said god does exists, he created us in such a way that we can't punch clear through another mans chest, yet you don't hear freewill being challenged because of that. So, since if he did design us he made the design decisions that limit our ability to act on our will. We can list many things we cannot act upon such as:Swimming to the bottom of the ocean without assistanceFlying without assistancespinning fast enough to drill a hole in the ground. With design decisions coming from the designer, freewill is not an excuse once it is demonstrated that design decisions would effect our ability to act on our freewill. I would also say that the freewill excuse is special pleading for god. If a person watched a child get raped and didn't act on it when they could have stopped it, not one person would sit there and say freewill was a viable excuse for this. We know the moral thing to do is stop it. God must know about it he has all knowledge. He can stop it he is all powerful after all. Yet he doesn't act in the loving way and stop it. Considering this world has so many factors that limit our ability to act on free will, it would make no sense to say god could not be another. I think the part where he argues that its better because we don't live under a tyrant is self defeating. Exactly how could an all loving being making loving decisions to interfere in freewill be a tyrant? So in conclusion is previous 2 arguments rely on 2 faulty premises the first one is that this is the best possible universe. Once we realize that we can imagine better universes, this makes it a cognitive dissonance in our heads to believe that is is the product of a omni-god. The 2nd one is that freewill is independent of all other forces and a unrestricted free will. Once you realize that many things act of our ability to act our will, including our physical attributes, that the designer would have made, you realize freewill is not an excuse.