Evil proves God does not exist

The reason that I have repeated the same point over and over again is that despite what Con seems to believe, he as not actually offered a counterargument against it. Instead, what he seems to do is attempt to hold me to an extreme burden of proof, arguing over and over again that I have not "proven" anything. Am I expected to prove by exhaustion within 8000 characters that there is no reason that God would allow evil? It wouldn't matter what any suggestions were, because the answer would always be: no, he would not allow evil because he is morally good. There is a contradiction between allowing evil to occur and being morally good. A logical contradiction is proof that one of the premises is false. We already agreed that evil exists, so the premise that God exists must be false. This does prove that the existence of evil indicates that God does not exist. Either my opponent is asking for a level of metaphysical certainty that is impossible or he does not accept a logical proof as proof. I did not reject the free will argument because I "did not like it," I rejected it because it did nothing to solve the problem. My opponent gave no explanation as to why a morally perfect God would consider free will more important that well being and happiness, and I find this to be a logical contradiction in any case. A morally perfect God does not place amoral goals (allowing free will) over moral goals (preventing evil). My opponent did not understand this argument at all because he seems to have some cognitive dissonance that does not allow him to distinguish between well reasoned logic and things I am just making up. Everything I have said, regardless of how I have defended it from the implications of his own statements, has just been my "opinion." The reason I say that I cannot think of reasons for things is because I believe there are none. This was an indication that Con should provide us with such reasons so that we could understand his argument, but he chose to write this off as ignorance on my part and neglected to explain anything. Are we to assume that there is a logical explanation for every conflict and apparent contradiction that I have pointed out simply because I have failed to exhaust all possible counterarguments? Indeed, Con seems to think he is under no obligation to debate at all, claiming this to be my argument: "1) Con did not give a reason why God would allow suffering 2) Therefore there is no reason why God would allow suffering 3) Therefore evil proves God does not exist" Effectively, he is claiming that he doesn't have to debate anything because his lack a counterargument doesn't necessarily mean my claims are true. That is correct, but it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a debate works. I could have argued that the existence of cake is proof that God does not exist, and if my opponent did not provide a counterargument then I would win the debate. If Con does not provide a reason why God would allow suffering, then there is no reason /to assume God would allow suffer, within the context of this debate./ Therefore, as far as this debate is concerned, there is adequate reason to believe that God does not exist. Voters decide who won the debate based on the context of what is discussed in the debate and not on possibilities that did not come up in discussion. Otherwise, everyone would always just vote according to who they agreed with and the debate wouldn't matter. My opponent even directly admits that he doesn't have an argument: "My absent of argument would not prove that God does not exist due to evil." This is technically correct, but it is not how you win a debate. My opponent does go on to make an actual argument. He suggests that a good that is done out of free will is more significant than a good that is done without free will. It would have been a good idea to bring an argument like this up long ago so he would have time to actually defend it. However, he doesn't seem to care about defending it because he doesn't think it's necessary for him to argue during a debate. The sheer remote possibility that this is true is not enough to convince anyone that it solves the problem of evil. Indeed, this proposition is riddled with problems: 1. The extra amount of good that results from conscious, undetermined acts of good rather than forced acts of good would have to be enough to outweigh all the evil in the world, as well as the good lost by opportunity. It is impossible to quantify this or predict how the world might be different if there were no evil or free will, so we have no way of knowing if there is a "net" moral gain for either option. It seems extremely presumptuous to say that the moral significance of a conscious good is so much greater than that of an unconscious good that it outweighs all the suffering in the world. 2. Why does it even matter if a good act is performed as a result of free will or predetermination? If God is morally good He wants conscious beings to be well off and not suffer. Why would it be of such importance to Him that good acts be performed as a result of free will? There is no reason that this should matter. 3. God could create a universe in which everyone has free will, yet always chooses to be good anyway. He is omniscient, so He has a perfect vision of the future, and He is omnipotent, so He can alter anything. Why not alter the present so that it exists in such a way that only good choices will be made in the future? He certainly has the power to do this. Everyone would have the ability to choose to be good or evil, but everyone would choose to be good anyway. God certainly has the power to do this if He exists, but He has not done it. This argument is full of holes. Of course, that's be to expected because only two lines were spent outlining it and absolutely no effort went into defending it or elaborating on it. It's unfortunate that my opponent waited until the last round to bring it up, but I don't think he would have actually defended it anyway. In conclusion, my opponent has not actually debated me. He has just repeatedly stated that my points do not prove anything and then offered us the explanation that he does not have to debate because the debate does not prove anything. Well, that's true, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to prove anything within the context of the debate. I used logic and our agreed upon standards to demonstrate that my argument was correct. Within a debate, that is what proving something is. I apologize for my lack of metaphysical certainty. If I say that God doesn't have a reason to allow evil (based on my opponent's definitions!) and my opponent doesn't give an adequate reason to suggest otherwise, then we are to assume for the purpose of the debate that I am right. I showed that any contradiction to that assumption was logically impossible, a point which was dismissed and ignored. Within the context of this debate, my argument has been completely proven.