Problem of evil is a flawed argument

I am making no hidden assumptions. Omnibenevolence means that God will always choose the action that causes the greatest good. Having no evil is the greatest good. God knows of this, and is capable of carrying it out. Therefore, if God existed, He would have an obligation to remove all evil. 1) If God's creation was completely good, it would not have the potential to produce evil. That is the definition of perfect good. 2) So did I. "Con claims that God could have instated the greater good from the beginning which is not true." It is true. If it weren't true, then God wouldn't be omnipotent, which He allegedly is. Omnipotence means the capability to do anything. With infinite power comes infinite responsibility. Free will does not exist, as I stated before. "God desires that we know him personally through experience which can only be instated by human choice, not merely intellectual knowledge that God places inside the human mind." Then God should make it that way without having anyone actually having to suffer. Before you rant on about that being impossible, I will remind you: omnipotence. You defined God's creation as natural good previously. Now you are defining it as nature benefiting humanity. Please choose one. Why would God need to punish? Why not simply change them to not be evil? Why not create them without being evil in the first place? If saving life is ultimately what God cares about, what purpose do the commandments serve, especially if you can violate them for some greater purpose. That undermines the idea of defining morality by the commandments. My question was rhetorical. I was stating that no rational motive would exist or an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being to create evil beings or beings capable of evil. I wasn't actually inquiring as to what that nonexistent motive would be. God would not need to build a world of perfection. If he were perfectly good, he would simply instate a perfect world right from the start. And before you rant on about how we need perseverence and suffering for a perfect world, I will remind you: omnipotence. I did show that he has to work that way. Removing evil is good and God is capable of doing that. Thus, if God truly were omnibenevolent and omnipotent, evil would not exist. If God were truly omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he would not need us to experience suffering to understand Him. He could simply have instated us with that knowledge. And before you rant on about how we need to experience suffering to understand Him, I will remind you: omnipotence. "We were never meant to discern good and evil" Except for when God told us what they were, allegedly. "we simply follow God's commandments" Except when that would conflict with saving life, of course. Yes, only an omniscient being understands everything. But you do not need to understand everything to understand certain key concepts such as omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. We can agree on certain things being good and evil most of the time is what I was saying. While the exact umbrella of morality is still yet to be pigeonholed, we can concur on basic things, such as how kidnapping a child and torturing them is generally immoral. Job did not need to experience suffering to learn of God's great goodness because again...omnipotence. You misunderstand my argument about the greater good. For humans who are not omnipotent, some evils are necessary to obtain greater goods because we have no other way. An omnipotent being does have another way to the greater good, a way to instate the greater good right from the start. That is the definition of omnipotence. The debate may not be strictly focused on free will, but it is related and therefore I find it necessary to show that we have no reason to believe that free will exists. How does forcing good display selfishness? If people could only perform good acts, then everyone would benefit. That is the opposite of selfishness. The possibility of good in the future is inferior to the certainty of good for all time. Which God allegedly can create, being omnipotent, and should create, being omnibenevolent. In summation: Excuses for needing suffering to build experience fall flat because God could simply instate the experience gained knowledge in our brains without having to actually have anyone suffer. God can do this because God is omnipotent and can do anything. Comparisons to humans making sacrifices to the greater good fall flat because humans are not omnipotent. Using free will as a justification does not work for two reasons. Firstly, if free will can be a source of evil, there is not reason to create it. Secondly, free will does not exist. Over to you, Pro.