If an omnipotent, omnicient, and omni-benevolent God can exist with evil.

Thanks to Con. I'm going to take a different route and provide direct responses to what Con says as it seems necessary. There really isn't much to respond to. "My opponent assumed that for something to be logical, it must be 100% proved. This is not quite true, as logic often is taking the place of the inability to prove something 100%." My opponent is equivocating a bit on the term logical. We use "logical" in an every day sense like "If I have a bad back and aching feet and I have to get some place in a hurry it'd be logical to take my car to get there instead of walking." This is how Con is using it. But that is at odds with the argument he is using; the "logical" in the logical problem of evil refers to the deductive premises of the argument. A deductive argument guarantees the truth of it's conclusion if it is valid and sound, so, yes, in a way you can 100% prove something. Or near enough. Con: "Given the previous argument and my opponent's second paragraph, I do not have to show it is logically IMPOSSIBLE, but rather that it is EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE. Actually, Con does have to show it is logically impossible for God to exist with evil not merely "extremely improbable" and I made sure to establish that from my very first round with my distinction between the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil. Con is conflating the two arguments which are wholly distinct from each other. Note how Con backtracks from his earlier claim. In round 2 Con states: "Is God able to and willing to prevent evil? - It seems not, as evil exists. So God is either not omnipotent [if he is not able] or he is not all-good [if he is not able]. This leaves that perhaps he is able and willing, but simply ignorant of the fact evil exists. This is, though, trumped by the fact that he is omniscient. Given this logic,**IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE GOD DESCRIBED TO EXIST**. [emphasis added by me]" Now Con is claiming that he only has to prove God to be extremely improbable with respect to the existence of evil. What Con has done has illicitly switched from the *logical* problem of evil to the *evidential* problem of evil. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, as I explained in the very first round, switching to the evidential problem of evil leads Con to concede the debate because he is conceding that God can exist with evil when his argument suggests the opposite. Con has left himself in a dilemma. He can try to prove that free will is logically impossible as a morally sufficient reason that God has for allowing evil which I suspect he cannot do (no knock on Con's intelligence; the most brilliant of atheist philosophers struggle to do it too and most have given it up as futile) or he can switch to the evidential problem of evil which already concedes that God can exist with evil. Con's argument (Epicurus' s argument, rather) is set up as a deductive logical argument where if the premises are true then the conclusion *necessarily* follows meaning that the conclusion is certain. In a way, deductive logical arguments are just like mathematical proofs in that the conclusion or result/output is guaranteed if we have the right input. Here is Con's basic argument in deductive form: (1) If there is a God who is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent evil would not exist. (2) Evil exists. (3) Therefore God does not exist. That is the logical problem of evil in a nutshell and if the premises are true then the conclusion follows with certainty. If one accepts the premises but not the conclusion then, point blank, they are being irrational. What the argument here is claiming is that God CANNOT exist with evil; that God is LOGICALLY incompatible with evil. So, by implication, it MUST be LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that God have any morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist. Con must show that the free will defense has a logical contradiction either inherent in it or there is a logical contradiction in asserting the free will defense with God. Con, who is advocating the *logical* problem of evil, has not done so; ergo, Con has lost the debate. Con: "I understand my opponent may find this incredibly hard for me to do, but this is because of his belief on the matter." It has nothing to do with me being Christian or not. It's a difficult task for anyone because proving that a being who is omniscient having reasons to allow evil is logically impossible is a tough task to say the least. "My opponent states that free will is good and justified because he believes it to be so. In his mind, it is justified and obvious. This is a logical fallacy, though. Just because someone believes something to be so, does not make it true. When did I say that me believing free will is intrinsically good makes it so? I actually gave reasons why. One of them being robots can't enter into genuine loving relationships and the God we are talking about certainly is concerned with loving his creations. If we did not have the option to be a free person, then we would all be ignorant, but COMPLETELY HAPPY slaves. Yes, it sounds cruel, but this is only because we have experienced freedom. But if the idea of freedom never came into our minds, we would be of the utmost happy, as there would be no evil. My opponent seemingly doesn't grasp my point. The free will defense has nothing to do with had humans never known freedom we could still be happy. I don't contend that. Ignorance can be bliss after all. What I'm contending is that had humans NOT known freedom that genuine loving relationships would be impossible and if God is concerned with actual love then God would have good reason to give humans free will. And free will (at least the kind I am talking about) entails that a agent be able to choose between alternatives (good and evil in this context). "Well this must mean God is NOT omnipotent. It seems my opponent can only back up his arguments for each individual attribute by violating another. In this point, my opponent justifies evil by saying God doesn't have the power to do something. [Breaking the attribute of omnipotence.]" To keep this short - God's omnipotence doesn't entail that God be able to actualize logically impossible states of affairs. Is this a limit to God's power? No. God's omnipotence simply means God can do all things POSSIBLE. Because things that are logically impossible aren't possible it follows they don't fall within the power of God. In fact they don't fall anywhere in existence or possible existence because logically impossible "things" can't exist in the first place. "My opponent says that I have not shown why it is impossible to show this resolution false. Correct. "Yet, I have gone through and shown how in EVER SINGLE ARGUMENT my opponent is forced to violate one of the resolution's terms to make his point." Con can't merely show that the free will defense is improbable; Con must show how it is logically impossible as a morally sufficient reason God would have for allowing evil as I have already explained. "Now, I am not insulting the debater, as I understand the fact that it is impossible to prove something false. " This is not really relevant but it is entirely to possible to prove something false. It's entirely possible to prove that 1 + 1 = 1 is false.