The Problem of Evil falsifies the Christian God's Omnibenevolence

IntroductionThank you Envisage for allowing me to take this debate, despite your initial resistance. I look forward to hopefully more debates about theology or philosophy with you in the future. Now on to business. In this debate, pro had to show gratuitous evil exists in order to show the Problem of Evil argument works. If I've given you good reason to doubt that gratuitous evil exists than I've done my job and should be awarded the debate. If you feel like my opponent has proven gratuitous evil than by all means vote for him. A summary of My ArgumentA benevolent God would necessarily give his people free will. A loving God won't force you to know and love him. If God have his creatures eternal bliss, he is actually taking away their free will to voluntarily know and love him. God gave man free will and the result is moral evils. Like it or not, God both allows and creates natural evils. He needs to. The world to a certain degree has to suck. If it didn't than how are we to ever be able to appreciate God's glory? My opponent's only solution to the natural and moral evils is to deny man free will. A benevolent God by definition can't refuse man free wil. You don't force your children to love you, and no good parent allows their kid to go without facing some adversity, pain and resistance. unaddressed ArgumentsI've addressed every one of my opponent's major arguments. I may have missed some of his examples of gratuitous evil, but it wasn't intentionally and it was only to focus on the big picture. Which actually takes all problems into consideration. "We have many examples of sentient beings which will not receive heavenly redemption (particularly non-humans) according to the Christian doctrine which will undergo unnecessary (gratuitous) suffering, specifically naturalistic suffering. This single line of argument has gone completely unaddressed by Con, yet it seems to be the cleanest, and most obvious example of gratuitous suffering I have provided in this debate, as such it seems that it should have been the first one that Con should have addressed. "The animal argument was barely touched on by my opponent and easy to miss. My opponent has assumed any arguments I make concerning humans don't also apply to animals. This is actually the first time he mentions animals don't go to heaven. If he'd claimed animals aren't saved earlier I could have shown that they in fact do go to heaven if they choose, or I could have argued animals are philosophical zombies, which is what most early Christians believed. To sum this up in one sentence. Animals go to heaven. All arguments directed towards humans are applicable to all forms of life. I urge voters to disregard my opponent's claim that animals aren't awarded a wonderful afterlife. Look my opponent hasn't shown proof of gratuitous evil anywhere. He points to horrible examples of suffering but fails to realize that even 100 years of suffering is no big deal when awarded infinite bliss. I'll take 100 years of suffering for an infinite amount of years of bliss any day. My opponent has failed to show what the perfect amount of suffering is, either. If there is too much suffering now than what does he propose is the perfect amount. In reality any suffering over absolutely none, won't satisfy my opponent. Off TopicI'll address the other arguments, because I feel obliged. However the voters should understand that this debat is about a famous argument called "The Problem of Evil". Go ahead google the term. Wikipedia it. The problem of evil is an entirely different argument than the Evil God argument. The 2 aren't related. It's an entirely different argument than the modal argument from evil. These arguments are off topic and shouldn't even be happening. Seriously each round could have been 5,000 words if we avoided these off topic arguments. Evil GodThe evil God hypothesis does nothing other than show that an evil god would be indistinguishable from a benevolent one. It doesn't disprove a benevolent God. The evil God argument just isn't very impressive. Given the justification of percieved evil I've given, the evil God hypothesis is no more likely than a benevolent God. The Modal Argument From Evil As I've already explained before the Modal Argument From Evil as presented by my opponent is not the proper use of modal logic. Unlike him I don't expect voters to learn about modal logic to understand my arguments. My opponent proclaims that even if gratuitous evil has a 1 in a billion chance of existing, it disproves a benevolent God. This isn't a logic problem, though. This is the real world, and in the real world there is either a 100% chance if gratuitous suffering or a zero percent chance. My opponent has failed to prove gratuitous evil. It isn't his fault. It I impossible to prove such a concept. Our time horizons are 2 short and our knowledge of the here after and God's motives are too shallow to be able to conclude that gratuitous suffering exists. He's shown that maybe gratuitous suffering exists. Well maybe isn't good enough. He needs to prove it and despite conventional wisdom, gratuitous evil is harder to prove than any sort of theistic argument you can think of. I applaud his heroic efforts, but he falls short. The Argument With all this discussion completely unrelated to the POE, it's easy to forget what that argument was to start with. So let's take a look again. The argument is in my opponent's R2 arguments under the appropriate section heading entitle Problem of Evil. P1. If the Christian God exists THEN gratuitous suffering will not exist P2. Gratuitous suffering exists Conclusion. The Christian God does not exist. The argument isn't logically sound, because P2 hasn't been proven.