The problem of evil has no valid defense.

Circles, Squares and GodPro says. .. "1. This shape is a circle.2. This shape has four sides. We recognize this is a logical contradiction once we understand that a "circle" is a "shape with zero sides". "But here is the question, what is it that Pro understands about "God" and "Evil" that means the existence of one excludes the possibility of the others existence ? There is no explicit contradiction of God exists & Evil existsPro responds that the God they are talking about is. .. "1. Omniscient.2. Omnipotent.3. Benevolent. ", yes I understand that, my argument about "God" already assumed that. Consider the two following claims. .. .1) God an (1. Omniscient.2. Omnipotent.3. Benevolent. ) being exists2) Evil existsOnce again, there is no EXPLICIT contradiction here. All my previous arguments still apply here. If I really have to repeat my self. .. ..1) An (1. Omniscient.2. Omnipotent.3. Benevolent. ) being could have morally sufficient reason for allowing evil 2) Evil existsC) Therefore the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of an (1. Omniscient.2. Omnipotent.3. Benevolent. ) being. Pro says. .. "He says I have nothing to support my premise that "It is not possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist". My reasons are those mentioned above and in my previous arguments (specifically, in my first round, where I concisely explain the problem of evil). "I invite anyone to re-read Pros round 1 argument. At no point did they prove that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to have sufficient moral reason to allow evil as Pro says. .. "The reasons being are fairly simple: only a deity who is intrinsically malevolent (or at least apathetic) would both be aware of the atrocities in the universe and be able to put an end to them, yet do nothing about them. And a deity who is benevolent would only allow these atrocities to continue if it is either unaware of their existence or unable to stop them, or both. "Pro already assumes here that its impossible for a benevolent entity to have morally sufficient reason to allow evil. Pro has not presented it as an option to be ruled out cause they already excluded it. In other words Pro is trying to prove that its impossible for God to have morally sufficient reason to allow evil cause they already assumed its impossible for God to have morally sufficient reason to allow evil. .. circular reasoning. Possibilities vs ImpossibilitiesWe have a problem here, cause we are both making claims that are EXPLICITLY contradictory, those being. .. .1) It is possible for God to have sufficient moral reason to allow evil 2) It is impossible for God to have sufficient moral reason to allow evilTake for example the claim that it is possible it will rain tomorrow. Now this is a modest claim, it doesn't claim it WILL rain, just that its possible. But what if some one in response was to say, I don't think its even possible, cause it is impossible it will rain tomorrow. As you can see, the impossibility claim has a heavy burden to carry, cause it has to rule out any and all possibilities that it will rain tomorrow in order to be justified. As long as its even remotely possible that it will rain tomorrow, the claim that its impossible it will rain is unjustified. Like-wise the claim that its impossible for God to have sufficent moral reason is unjustified as long as the possibility of God having sufficient moral reason is around. ConclusionUntil proven other wise, the mere possibility of God/ An 1. Omniscient.2. Omnipotent.3. Benevolent. being having moral sufficient reason to allow evil, makes the existence of God and Evil logically compatible and thus is a valid defense to the logical problem of evil that assumes that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God.