Evil proves God does not exist

I appreciate Cons's response to my proofs. However, my points still stand. First, Con argues that it's "unfair" to say God commits evil by committing the chain of events that result in evil. He asserts this by stating if someone did something evil, unknowingly (like the car example), that they can't be blamed for that moral wrong. However, God, as defined, is "all-knowing". 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. Therefore, either Con agrees God does in fact commit chains of actions that result in evil,(making him non-existent because he must be infinitely good) or God does not know the evil will occur (meaning he is not "all-knowing" and thus cannot exist). Because once again, God must be consistent with his given nature in order to exist. My opponent claims he refutes natural evil by stating that "evil by nature and description doesn't act fair". Certainly it doesn't. But if there is a "God" that controls "nature" then all evil that "is not fair" should not exist. Because if God knew that his creation would result in deaths, (see above), then he is committing evil because he is all-powerful and could prevent the deaths. Once again, all parameters of God must be present for him to exist. But although I will agree free will includes our ability to choose good or evil, my opponent agrees nature is evil. Human free will does not control nature; God would control nature and if nature is evil, then God is committing evil. Therefore, he cannot exist. My opponent states he refutes my claim, "God has chosen to allow death without reason to exist" and by asserting free will. Again, I am talking about natural evil like earthquakes, tornadoes, floods and the like. 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. 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: Does that mean there is no free will in heaven, where evil does not exist? Do we suddenly lose our "inherent right" for being awarded paradise, or do free will and evil have to come hand-in-hand? Also, if we stop a man from murder, is that wrong because we stopped his free will? Does free will automatically mean moral? Going back to my first argument, does that mean if God's earthquakes kill thousands, it's justified because God exercised his free will? The cost would not be our free will; an all-powerful God is capable of giving us free will and infinite good; or is heaven just a paradise that we become enslaved in? I am under the impression heaven DOES contain no evil AND free will, therefore such a world without evil that still has free will CAN exist. Or does my opponent believe heaven is not this way? In the end, God SHOULD give us Heaven, rather than force us to suffer in life. Or does it (and God) simply not exist? I go with the latter, because there is sufficient evidence to show they do not (again, see ALL the above). Lastly, my opponent claims God must exist if objective morals exist, because without him there is no moral standard for morality. However if the God we have learned of WAS the objective standard, he would be an incorrect one. He is simply "not the moral standard" and since God SHOULD be, he doesn't exist. Objective morals CAN exist without God. Plenty of philosophers have many objective goals in life; hedonists believe pleasure to be our moral standard; utilitarians believe societal good to be the moral standard; objectivists believe life to be the moral standard. 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. Because once again, an "all-knowing", "all-powerful", "infinitely good" God would not kill through natural events like I have shown. Either Con agrees he is not one of the aforementioned traits (making him not exist), or simply, he does NOT exist. My other huge problem with Con's argument is that he still has not made it clear whether good and evil is made by God, or if good and evil exists independent of God. If good and evil is created by God, then God is the reason for all good, but ALSO all evil (making God not infinitely good). If good and evil exists independent of God, then automatically, morals are objective without the need for God's existence (which I assert). Can you state your stance on this question? In conclusion, I have shown the following: God allows evil that is not our choice to happen, making him not infinitely good. He does not exist. God also knows that what he does (making an earth that results in natural disasters) will result in death (because he is all-knowing) but allows it to happen anyway. Because he would not be restricting our free will by removing natural disasters, he is committing evil for allowing this to happen. This cannot be since God must be infinitely good. Therefore, God does not exist. Either heaven doesn't exist , or heaven is a paradise in which we become enslaved (because a world with free will can only exist with evil, according to Con). If heaven doesn't exist, it's creator could not exist because Heaven has to be created by God. Or, God removes our will after death, making him inconsistent with his nature (which includes giving man free will). Either way, God is shown not to exist. Objective morals CAN exist independent of God. If a man never knew of "God", does that mean he cannot commit a single good act? My opponent can agree with this, meaning objective morals exist without God, or disagree, which is false (I'll explain if he dissents). These points refute my opponent's arguments. Therefore, I have shown why evil proves God does not exist.