Evil proves God does not exist

Well here is the final round, I got alot to get through, once again I am not going to try and address every single point Pro raises but try and address the fundamental issues. Firstly that car example and the God free will argument, doesn't state that God commits the entire chain of events. Pro argues "Therefore, to be consistent with his nature he would KNOW that the events will end up in evil. If the person who made and sold the car KNEW that it would result in death, then yes. That action is evil" I don't object to the claim of Gods knowledge, but your objection seems to be, oh God allowed some sort of free will decision, knowing that this would start a chain of events resulting in evil therefore God act is evil. The simple question is, what exactly did God do wrong ? , God gave capacity of free will, evil results and runs a muck. Pro claims "NONE of these are a result of our free will. My claim stands (see above) that God does not exist because he allows natural evil to happen" In case it wasn't obvious I was arguing that once evil exists by free moral choice, evil doesn't restrict its self to human moral choice, since its evil, that what evil does, and thus natural evil occurs. That's my defense of natural evil existing. Pro says "My opponent also states that a world without evil cannot exist because there is not free will. I ask my opponent to answer the following:" I did not, I was refuting your claim that heaven can be given straight away without cost. Pro goes on to ask a series of questions, I am not required to answer those, the resolution is "evil proves God does not exist" not ask your opponent 101 questions and if they can't answer them that must prove you right by default. Pro says "Objective morals CAN exist without God. Plenty of philosophers have many objective goals in life;". This is a misunderstanding of what objectivity morality means. Objective morality does NOT equate to people coming up with their own goals in life. Objective morality means things are morally right or morally wrong cause there is an objective standard that exists independently. Pro says "All moral standards that exist without a "God". We do not need to determine which IS the moral standard, I am just presenting ample evidence that God does not have to be the moral standard" This is a straw man, I never said there can't be morality without Gods existence, I only argued that objective morals don't exist unless God exists, and without an objective standard all morality is relative and thus no behavior is objectively wrong or right. Pro says "Therefore, I have shown why evil proves God does not exist" Seeing my opponent can't concede that God is the objective standard, I asked Pro before what is the objective standard that Pro uses that shows that God has committed objective evil acts, and therefore does not exist as defined. If there is no objective standard of morality, then its impossible for anything even God to commit an objective evil, and if God can't commit an objective evil, then what exactly is the argument. Previously Pro had said " My opponent asks if God has a moral duty, and I state yes. God, being infinitely good, must be the highest moral agent in existence" But the question wasn't if God is the highest moral agent in existence, the question was if God has a moral duty. And I add further to this, what is the thing that gives God this moral duty that you claim that God has transgressed ? My opponent has not showed an objective morality existing outside of God, therefore their case against God on objective moral grounds fails. 1) Objective morals only exist if God 2) Objective morals do exist 3) Therefore God exists Without an objective standard to charge God with committing objective evils, the case against God comes down to a form of emotivism. 1) Things happen that I really really don't like, things that even horrify me 2) If God existed, things that I really really don't like, things that even horrify me would not happen 3) Therefore God does not exist I don't want to down play the emotional impact of the various horrors that exist in this world, and acknowledge their is only so much the human psyche can take, but an emotional argument is just that, emotional. An emotional argument is not a logical proof. Pro has not proved that Evil existing proves that God does not exist.