The existence of God is unlikely

Pro has misunderstood what I said.If morality is subjective, then we can never define "morally perfect" because no two people have the same definition. If morality is objective, which is implied by pro's condition that God be omnibenevolent, then God, being the creator of everything, would decide what is moral. Also, being all-powerful, he would have control over said morals.Basically, the argument from evil is screwed one of three ways:1. If God is evil "by our definition", then that means morality is based on personal opinion, and a personal opinion is not grounds for refuting the existence of something, either logically or probabilistically.2. If morality is objective, and if God created/controls the universe, then he must create/control morality, and therefore he is the highest authority on morality, and is therefore morally perfect.3. If morality is objective but its laws are higher than God, then the God we are describing is not all powerful, and therefore not really "God", making the debate pointless.I am not begging the question, because I am not asserting the existence of God. This is all hypothetical.God being a jerk is personal opinion; it's irrelevant under point 1 above, overruled under point 2, and doesn't refer to "God" under point 3.I reject Pro's assertion that his claim is evidential. Without absolute certainty of what is moral, this debate has no evidence. It would be like arguing against the existence of DNA when we don't yet know where babies come from, and many still believe they're delivered by the stork."If I was trying to disprove the existence of God I would have used a logical argument from evil not a probabilistic one. I explained the differnce betwen these two arguments from evil in round 2 [sic]"This is incorrect. Pro did NOT explain the difference at all, but merely stated he would use one and not the other."if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being, then there are good reasons to think that such a being does not exist due to the fact there are many instances of apparent gratuitous evil. [sic]"There are many reasons why what we define as "gratuitous evil" could exist: we could be mistaken about their morality; they may be necessary or inevitable for life; the downsides of smiting evil-doers could outweigh the benefits; or, maybe, a perfectly good world is just unbearable for people to live in.Premises:1. God can make contradictions, because an omnipotent being can do anything. Pro is attempting to shift the goalposts here.Also, God himself is a married bachelor. He was married to Israel, yet had no consort. And there's nothing to stop a mortal man from ditching his wife, changing his identity and resuming bachelorhood while still being technically married. A married bachelor is a terrible example of a contradiction, due to loophole abuse.2. Again, I'm not saying that God exists. However, if God does exist, and he did create everything, and good and evil are objective, then it logically follows that God created them. Thus, if God exists, it doesn't matter what an Atheist's opinion of good and evil is.Also, Pro, never claim that your argument was successful. That is for the voters to decide.Conclusion:As I stated in Round 1, I do not believe in God. However, my job was to defeat Pro's arguments. It is my contention that Pro's arguments, while straight-forward, were not precise enough in their definitions and did not adequately address the counter-arguments. Nevertheless, Pro argued well, and for that I thank him.I leave you with this comic strip, which I found amusing: