The Problem of Evil (PoE)

ClarificationsI would like to point out, it is not my burden to prove that God exists, but rather as Pro invites me to do, to challenge and object and try and refute their argument, and to see if Pro can answer & defend against those objections. The Problem of Evil vs Evil proves God does not existAs Pro points out, the problem of evil merely questions how to explain the existence of evil with an already assumption that God exists. Clearly Pro has gone beyond the questioning of evil to presenting an argument that God does not exist because evil exists (more specifically gratuitous evil). As such I think it would add clarity that Pros argument is not within the scope of the problem of evil but rather an argument that seeks to prove that God does not exist, based on the existence of gratuitous evil. This MUST be the case for pros argument to even get off the ground, why you ask ? cause as Pro mentions the POE already assumes that God exists. As Pro says. .. "Importantly, the PoE requires not only the assumption of God's existence, but of a very particular type of God (one who is, among other things, omnibenevolent), as specified by my definition of God in R1. " If we already assume that God exists consider the following argument. ..1) Assume an all-powerful and all-good God exists, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.2) Evil exists (Pros argument)3) Therefore any evil that exists must have an adequately compensating good. (From p1)4) Therefore gratuitous evil does not existSo it does Pro no good to make the same assumption that the POE does, that being God exists, cause once you make that assumption the existence of gratuitous evil becomes a logical impossibility, thus refuting premise 3) of pros original argument. You need good to have evil1) Evil can only exist if Good exists2) Good does not exist3) Therefore Evil does not exist. Now I was interested in how Pro was going to respond to this argument, as premise 1 is a given and pro clearly needs evil to exist for their argument to work. Therefore I thought that Pro would go after premise 2). So I was quite surprised when pro offered no challenge to premise 2 but rather provided a counter argument that agrees with premise 2 that says. ..1) If God exists, he is omnibenevolent (i. e. He is all good)2) Good does not exist 3) God does not existOnce again, good does not exist according to this argument therefore evil does not exist, so once again pros premise 2 & 3 of their original argument is false. Pro responds. .. "Immediately noticeable here is that given the definition of God, Con objections to the PoE while assuming that God does not exist! "Oh ok, lets allow for the existence of God then.1) If God exists then good exists2) Evil exists (pros argument)3) Evil can only exist if good exists 4) Good exists 5) Therefore God exists This contradicts Pros original argument that concludes God does not exist. Evil is a problem for who exactly ? Pro towards the end remarks. .. "I contend that evil is a problem for theism, which is, after all, what the PoE is all about. "Its a problem, buts its a problem for the atheist too. Why ? cause the atheist who wants to use some kind of evil as a proof against the existence of God, needs to find the good some where else from which they can derive evil from. Since they can't find the good in the God they are claiming doesn't exist, where does the athiest get this good from ? Pro never tells us, Pro is quite clear on the existence of evil, but isn't so clear on the existence of the good. I look forward to Pros reply.