The Problem of Evil is Reasonable

I am not attempting to change the burden."He or she has to show how evil/suffering can coexist with God"This is the burden Con has to fulfill. He tried to do so by raising two objections, I countered with a total of four responses. I continued to defend all of them while my opponent only really addressed one, namely my response to the FW defence. He claims that he was successful in doing so but he ignored every criticism pointed against it. Never did he justify the kind of FW that not only he but professional philosophers, too, agree is necessary for the FW defence to achieve anything(1). However he still argues that I do not contend this.I assume some of this arises due to not taking into account everything I actually said in round one:1. God: An omnipotent (allpowerfull), omniscient (allknowing), benevolent (allgood/loving) transcendental creator2. He or she has to show how evil/suffering can coexist with God.Of course he has to use the definition of God established under 1.3. The Problem of EvilHe completely ignores the fact that natural disasters, diseases, etc. all contradict this definition of "God" and therefore pose a serious challenge to the claim that he has "definitively shown how evil/suffering can coexist with God".How much Evil? is absolutely relevant to his burden. I don't think I have to reiterate the PoE to make clear that a God as defined above would not allow for evil. My opponent objected that some evil is necessary. This poses the question of how much evil is necessary, because a God as defined above would not allow for evil to exceed this necessary minimum.However it is obvious to anyone who took a look at our world to see that the current amount of evil and suffering is not a necessary minimum for us to know the difference between good and bad, right and wrong. Hence, as stated multiple times before, a benevolent God would not allow for the unnecessary and needless evil to exist. Therefore it is up to my opponent to contest the apparent conclusion that God does not exist. To do this he has to show why the unnecessary evil does not in fact contradict the definition of God, for example by showing that for some reason this amount is necessarily needed. I don't think this inconsistency is hard to see or anything less than striking.However he never addressed this and instead simply claimed that there is no inconsistency.Or in other words, even if he manages to succeed with the FW defence he completely forgets that "evil" was defined as "Any moral wrong doing, any physical/emotional harm, any (unnecessary, avoidable, etc.) suffering will be considered "evil"".When he says that he demonstrated how evil can coexist with God, he is essentially saying that:he demonstrated how unnecessary and avoidable suffering can coexist with a morally perfect being.But frankly, he did not do this. This does not fall under the cover of the FW defence and remains a serious problem for the existence of God.Whether or not "wanting me to provide evidence to support whatever it is that he perceives as evil" is a violation of the rules "claiming there is no evil/suffering in the world, claiming that evil/suffering are not bad on God's or any other (moral) standard [...] will lead to a seven point loss" is up to the reader.In summary:1. Unexplained Suffering - never addressed and dismissed2. Libertarian Free Will - never defended against several objections3. How much Evil? - never addressed and dismissed4. Linguistics and Ontology - never addressed and dismissedTherefore I conclude that "It is reasonable to not believe in God on the basis of the problem of evil."(1) http://www.iep.utm.edu...