The Problem of Evil makes it unlikely that God exsits

The only reason I brought up your knowledge of the Bible is because all of your questions could be answered simply by studying the Bible. Instead, you choose to impose a strange definition of God (that he does not want there to be evil), and then knock it down. That's called a straw man argument. "I define him as omnibenevolent or perfectly good." I never said he wasn't perfectly good, only that your definition of "perfectly good" is flawed. You say the definition of omnibenevolence or perfect goodness demands the absence of evil, which I have clearly refuted. If we accept your definition then yes, the existence of God would indeed be unlikely. But your definition is not that held by most Christians. Where in those two verses does it say that God does not want us to endure evil? You are reading things in to the text that simply aren't there. "Point is, I am entirely consistent with God's Biblical characteristics." You are, as far as your choice of words for describing God, but your definitions of those characteristics are your own. "You just claim several times that without God there can be no evil. Why must this be so? Why do we need God to define evil?" That's because it is axiomatic. Where do you find the concept of evil outside of religious texts, particularly the Bible? The only reason you or any other atheist believes in evil is because of western culture, which is rooted in Christianity. I am not saying that bad things wouldn't happen, but the idea that they are morally evil would never occur to you. For that matter, neither would morality. "We can use logic and reason to create an objective moral standard" That is not an objective moral standard. Everyone thinks differently, therefore, their reasoning could lead them to completely different moral judgments. This happened in Germany, where the Nazi platform was endorsed by the entire intellectual community. Without an objective moral standard, you cannot say they were wrong since they used, to their minds, logic and reason to arrive at their conclusions! You cannot form an objective moral standard based on ideas in the human mind. I didn't say that God is required in order to have morality, only that you cannot have objective morality without God. I'm well aware that atheists can be very moral people, but they have nothing objective to base their morals on. In a purely physical world there can be no such thing as right and wrong, only space, matter, and energy. In that scenario, the only "right" and "wrong" that exists is imposed by each individual on the facts of reality. This is not objective, and morals are, by definition, objective. Therefore, there can be no morals without God. People can still behave morally, but they cannot logically, objectively support their behavior. I do respect atheists though, for their desire to do what's right without the treat of heaven or hell, and in that sense I think many of them are better people than many Christians. True Christians don't do what's right because of fear of heaven or hell either. "Your response is that we can know what God wants, because it's in the Bible that God wants us to believe in Jesus or whatever." I didn't say that at all. I said that if you accept the definition of God based on the Bible to use in a debate, you must also accept the explanations for evil given in the Bible which render the Problem of Evil irrelevant. Only by rejecting the definition of God in the Bible can you also reject the explanations given in the Bible for evil, in which case you also cannot present the problem of evil. Thus, the Problem of Evil is a weak argument. You point back to the verses in Psalms again, but once again, those verses don't say anything about God not wanting evil in the world. Psalms 145 is speaking poetically about nature, not about humanity. So what's the problem? 'Also, Jesus claims "No one is good except God alone"' Yes, and this is another verse which, if you are going to assume the truth of the Bible for the sake of this argument, invalidates it (the argument). If God is the only truly good being, how can we make a moral judgment as to whether something He does is good or not. You can't. "This claim seems false to me. I know things about what a unicorn is supposed to look like despite its non-existence." You said "God could just show some films, for example, that tell everyone what evil is." I stress the word "is". Why would he show a film about something that doesn't exist? It's just a silly argument. "I intended to claim that God could show us what evil is like without us having to go through pain and that he could do this with omnipotence." Once again, why would God instill in us knowledge of something we would never have to deal with? You can't "know" what evil is without having experience it. You can have an idea about something without experiencing it, but in order to truly know what evil is, you have to experience it. It's simply illogical, a contradiction of definition. I didn't say that evil exists to help us understand good or make life interesting ALONE. Those are just two of the reasons that come to mind. They explain why we might have evil. Whether or not we truly have too much evil depends on the actual reasons God had for creating this world. Indeed, God may create a world that contains even more evil than ours, and provided he has an adequate reason, there would be no basis on which to claim that there is "too much". There is just as much evil as is required to fulfill His purpose, whatever that is. "Now, I can make this claim without a perfect amount in mind. I know, for example, that I need more money (I'm broke at the moment) and I can make this claim without knowing exactly how much money I want." Very good point. However, you know you need more cash because you don't have enough to buy what you want. You can't provide a reason for deciding that there is too much evil other than that you think there's too much, which is totally a matter of opinion, not a logical argument. "If suffering is good for the reasons you mentioned, then why treat people well? Why not stab the person you just met in the spleen instead of shaking their hand politely?" You're digging really deep with this argument. One of the purposes of evil is for us to overcome it with our actions, not succumb to it, resulting in character. Your atheistic, for instance, morality would mean nothing if it was never tested by evil. That why I said we need evil in order to understand and appreciate good. If nobody was ever tempted to do something wrong, then saying "I'm a moral person" would be meaningless and shallow. It's not evil for it's own sake, it's the struggle against evil that is valuable. If everything were evil, you would have the same problem that you would if everything were "good". Going back to the book analogy, it is not the presence of evil alone in a book that makes it good, but its relationship to good, namely, struggle. I think this is the last round. Great debate, you did very well.