If an omnipotent, omnicient, and omni-benevolent God can exist with evil.

Alright. I thank my opponent for his clear and concise argument, as it is rare such a neat, organized one is shown. My opponent has made some seemingly valid arguments, and it is now my duty, as a debater and skeptic, to disprove them. So I will now go through the arguments, and show them faulty. First of all, my opponent points out that this argument can go TWO ways, one logical, and the other evidential. I am not quite sure what my opponent exactly means by evidential, or by how it inherently disproves my side of the argument. If my opponent could be more clear on this part, I'm sure an even cleaner debate will result. So opponent: please clarify. But now onto the argument that my opponent spent the most time on, the logical argument of how an all knowing, all powerful, and all good God could possibly exist with evil. My opponent seemed to understand the Epicurian approach on the argument, and I will, once again, show it here just as a re-clarification. Is God able to and willing to prevent evil? - It seems not, as evil exists. So God is either not omnipotent [if he is not able] or he is not all-good [if he is not able]. This leaves that perhaps he is able and willing, but simply ignorant of the fact evil exists. This is, though, trumped by the fact that he is omnicient. Given this logic, it is impossible for the God described to exist. Now, my opponent added an extra little bit of information in the mix to try and counter this logic. He stated that God has a *moral reason* to allow evil to occur. My opponent stated that the reason was that *free will* was of the utmost good, and that counters all evil in terms of morality. This is the major flaw in my opponent's argument. He assumes that free will is good enough to be worth all evil, or that it is even good at all. How is free will a good thing? I'll provide an example. Say you have a pet guinea pig that you keep in a cage in your house. It obviously does not have free will (as it is [probably] forced to stay in the cage). Yet, it survives so much better in the cage than being free. In the cage it gets food, exercise, (if the owner is kind) a playmate, a shelter, and any other thing it needs to live, along with many other luxuries it does not need. Now imagine what would happen if this guinea pig was allowed free will. It could easily will to roam free. When the guinea pig got out of the cage, it would no longer have food or water to survive. It would not have a guaranteed shelter, and it would constantly be in danger of something (whether is be the cat or the vacuum). Also, as it does not have the intelligence to go back inside, it will probably have a less happy, shorter, and more dangerous life rather than the luxurious one it had without free will. So it does not seem even close to logical that free will is of the greatest good, or good at all; and it *certainly* does not provide a moral reason to allow for the existence of evil. My opponent *could* of course say that God has a reason that is not known to us that sufficiently back up his reasoning for allowing evil. But the Christian Bible states that we are created in the image of God. This should certainly mean we would share the same moral system as Him, or at least something that resembles it. It would take a completely alien moral compass to think that free will is a moral thing. If my opponent says that He does have a completely different moral compass, than this shows that we are not in his image, and the Christian God still cannot exist. *free will* While it is simple to show that free will is evil, it should also be shown that the concept of free will is quite flawed in itself. True free will does not seem to even exist. This may *seem* like a contradiction when paired with my previous argument, but it really isn't as there are different levels of 'free will'. In the guinea pig example, I showed two completely different levels of free will, and how the more [free will] it seems we have, the less good it is for us. But, it seems there is no *actual* point where free will completely and wholly exists. This may seem like a technicality; like I am being much to literal with the concept of free will. But if God was the one who made it, and he is all knowing and powerful, he would not have allowed for imperfection of the concept. Saying this, if God was real, even at a technical level free will should still stand (which it doesn't). Now what do I mean when I say free will can't ever be achieved? I mean that every will cannot be accomplished by laws God supposedly created. I don't mean it's not free will when little Timmy doesn't get the 20 lbs. of chocolate he wants for Christmas, as this is one humans 'free will' against another's. The concept of free will would seem to stand in this situation. But here is one where it won't. Say my cat dies and I want to go back and see it again, just to see it. If I willed to go back in time, not being able to affect it, and only that which I've seen before, this would not be evil at all. I could not see anything I wasn't supposed to (eg. secret documents) as it's only things I've seen before. I also would be able to change anything, so I couldn't mess up the future. So God could allow me the desire of going back in time without allowing any evil to occur. So why is it I can't go back in time right now? Either A) God isn't able to let me. [disproves God.] Or B) God is not willing to let me go back in time [making him evil whilst disproving him]. So you can see that the seemingly good idea of free will just points back to the very same Epicurian logic that we started out with. So, in summary, my opponent has presented an argument with false premises [the idea that free will is good]. Any logical argument with a false premise means the result is also untrue. It seems my opponent did not refute the original premises in the argument I presented, meaning it must stand. I have shown, also, that the whole concept my opponent presents (supposedly set by God) is not possible, and in the ends only points back to my original argument. My opponent has not presented any other arguments, so my assertion that God can't exist still stands. I look forward to the next round, and hope it will be another clear, concise argument. Speaking of clear and concise, I apologize if there were mistakes grammatically or spelling wise in this rebuttal. It is late (12 AM) and I'm not going to read back over it. I await my opponent's response avidly, Good night.