Evil proves God does not exist (Part 3)

Pro says "Does evil exist? Yes, it does exist. Various people define various acts to be evil. Since there is no objective standard to tell us what acts are evil, an act that is believed by someone to be an evil act, is an evil act by that person’s standards. " Pro says "there is no objective standard to tell us what acts are evil". .. but I did not present an argument what acts are objectively good or objectively evil, just that an objective moral standard exists or more to the point that Pros arguments imply an objective moral standard. God and the objective moral standard Pro presents a parody argument, trouble is it kinda back fired, because your parody argument didn't actually prove the impossibility of the sun being vomited by bumba. Pro says "It would seem that (if we accept my opponent’s reasoning) anyone who claims the existence of the sun automatically admits the possibility of the existence of Bumba. This is, of course, false" You would have to provide more argument in your parody to prove that impossibility, you didn't as such your argument leaves open the option that bumba vomited the sun. Lack of evidence doesn't prove impossibility. If your going to claim something is impossible you need more than lack of evidence to back that up. Pro says "But there is a further problem with the above argument, namely it cannot succeed unless the Argument from Evil is defeated in the first place. " No, it does succeed until it is proved that God does not exist, or God can't be the objective moral standard, until proven other wise its still a possibility. As you say pro "Sure, assuming that morality is objective, God could be the source of morality, unless we can show that God cannot exist, " Indeed Pro, but have you done so is the question ? Call me biased but I am going to say nope. Next time you use a parody argument, where God is represented as bumba, you should actually have a parody argument that proves bumba and thus God doesn't exist. Whether an all-powerful god can stop all immoral things from happening at no cost. Pro says "My opponent now says that I havn't argued sufficiently about Gods ability to stop evil. " No, I argued that you have not shown God can't have sufficient moral justification for allowing evil to exist. Countering Pros new argument Part of Pros new argument says "2. A god, as defined (R1) can't seek anything else than a morally good world. " But seeking a morally good world is ambigous in this premise. Now maybe Pro means that by "seeking" pro really means God would not allow any evil to exist at all. But as I asked before why can't God have sufficent moral reason for allowing evil ? How should one go about seeking a morally good world ? Why can't seeking a morally good world include the temporary existence of evil ? Again if Pro claims God can't have moral sufficent reason for allowing evil, then why not ? Closing argument 1) Pros arguments implied and rested on the assumption that an objective moral standard exists. 2) Pro did not prove that God could not be that objective moral standard. 3) Pro did not prove that God can't have morally sufficient reason to allow evil to exist. In conclusion, it has not being proven that the existence of evil proves that God does not exist. I ask your vote go to the Con. I thank Pro for participating in this debate. I remind Pro that "Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries. " as stated at the start.