Problem of evil is a flawed argument

Firstly, let me say that any argument which attributes the evil in the world to something other than God is flawed for two reasons. 1) Ultimately, God created all things (allegedly) so if something is causing evil it's ultimately God's fault for creating an evil thing, or even a thing capable of evil. If God were truly omnipotent and omnibenevolent, He would not have allowed for even the possibility of evil. 2) Even if God isn't linked to the cause of the evil, that doesn't mean that he is exempt from responsibility for evils caused. With great power comes great responsibility. With infinite power comes INFINITE responsibility. This means that any evil, caused by God or not, is under his responsibility to prevent from existing. Additionally, any argument that says that evil is necessary to facilitate a greater good is flawed because being omnipotent, God could simply have instated that greater good from the very beginning. With that said, let's get to my opponent's arguments. Right off the bat, I notice flaws in your definitions of morality. If God's creation is "natural good", and natural disasters are part of his creation, but are also "natural evil", then it is possible for something to be "natural good" and "natural evil". This is a contradiction. You cannot say that natural disasters are not part of his creation, because ultimately everything is part of his creation (allegedly). Additionally, your definitions of "moral good" and "moral evil" are contradictory as well. Suppose I lie to prevent someone from being severely injured. This violates the commandments, but does not cause harm to anyone. Is it "moral evil" or "moral good"? Your first example falls under my first refutation. If God was omniscient, he knew that Eve and Satan would be evil. So why would he ever create them? Why would he create them with the potential to carry out evil? He has the obligation not to, as it is the moral thing to do and he has the capability of doing it. Also, if there were an omnipotent God, a sinless and perfect world could exist because God is omnipotent. He has the power to create a sinless and perfect world. He allegedly has the power to do anything. Again, with infinite power comes infinite responsibility. How exactly can anything be perfect yet still have evil? By definition, a perfect world would have no evil. Additionally, if a perfect world is possible, it is by definition better than the current world. So why did God not simply instate that world right from the start? He is omnipotent, he can do that. This falls under my third refutation. It really isn't a false dichotomy. When you give the choice-maker infinite power, there is absolutely no reason to allow evil to exist unless they themselves have evil intentions. See my third refutation. If we can't discern good and evil, then how can you define them (in retrospect you couldn't properly but we're ignoring that for the moment)? Additionally, finite knowledge doesn't mean that omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience cannot be understood. It just means that not EVERYTHING is understood. Good and evil is a question still under debate to philosophers, but that doesn't stop us from saying that certain things are good and evil most of the time. If we didn't agree on that, we'd have no basis for any structure of morality. Right off the bat your last point's tagline suggests that it will fall under my third refutation. Ah yes, the story of Job, where God ruined a man's life just for a bet with the Devil. If Job's ultimate reward for being unnecessarily punished is that God needed to know whether or not he would keep his faith if his fortune was taken away, why would God ever need to do that? God is omniscient, remember? He already knows whether or not Job would stay faithful. It the purpose of putting him through all that is just to show the Devil, it's still useless because he can just make the Devil know as well. He is omnipotent. And even if he is rewarded with more than he had before, God could have just let him have all of that before. Again, omnipotence. Again, with infinite power comes infinite responsibility. Yes, it is true that events which can have disastrous consequences can also have some good ones. Is it also true that with God's alleged omnipotence he could have allowed for a world with none of the bad side effects and all of the good ones? Yes. The answer to that question is yes. Don't even try to compare human development for the greater good to God causing harm for the greater good. Humans are not omnipotent. Humans have no other way of obtaining a greater good, so we do what we can. If we had the capability to make surgery painless, we would. If we had the capability to get rid of war, we would. You know who does allegedly have that capability? God. See my first refutation for this last point. If free will is a source of evil, why would God create it? Additionally, there is no reason to believe that free will even exists. Empirical evidence is needed to validate ideas, and free will is dependent upon multiple possible realities existing. We can only observe one reality, so free will is unprovable, and therefore unsupported. In all likelihood, we have no free will. "Free will is an illusion. Humans are pink robots." -Scott Adams Lastly, I will ask a question. If everything evil in the world has a purpose, what is the purpose of a starving child? Over to you.