It is possible for a tri-omni god to coexist with the evil which exists in this World.

Thank you for accepting my challenge.P1 - The Perpetuity of EvilFirstly, I will establish that the word "evil" is a lingual concept that belongs to man. It has no absolute definition by which we can determine, without question, that any given subject (i.e. action, thought, person) qualifies for the definition of evil or not. This means that the designation of the word or concept is subject to the subjective meaning and judgment of each individual. Even if we trace the meaning of the words that are used in the definition of "evil", the vagueness remains.The concept of evil is relative to the opposite word, "good". Both of these terms provide a means by which an individual can judge the morality of a subject. Good and evil are co-dependant and relative to each other. This functions similarly (albeit, more complexly) to our descriptions of "high" and "low" in regards to numeric values.To illustrate this, say that 100 individuals are assigned a random, whole, numeric value between 1 and 20, and that they are ignorant of possible numeric range. If a person is aware of all possibilities, then he will certainly describe 1 and the numbers approaching it as "low", and 20 and the numbers approaching it as "high". However, if the highest number that an individual is aware of is 5 (observing only a sample of the group), then his concept of "high" is radically different in that he will view 5 as a high number and those who are more aware will likely view 5 as a low number. This illustrates that such comparative labels are reliant on the perceived possibilities of an individual.One may argue that the individual may still be able to perceive a number higher than 5, but since it is not been established that it is a possibility, it is not taken into consideration for the purposes of assigning such a label. Furthermore, if by chance no member of this group was assigned a number higher than 15, it would establish a universally different scale of judgment than it would be it all of the possibilities were known.Consider a hypothetical scenario in which a small tribe of people form a community. This group has no concept of murder, as they have not yet even realized that this is a possibility. Now say that one member of this tribe is notorious for minor acts of theft and is often very rude to other members of the community. They would no doubt, cast the label of "evil" upon this individual as there is nothing worse to compare it to. Now, say another member of the tribe then outright murders another. Suddenly, their concept of evil will drastically change to suit the possibility of a greater degree of evil, and the former member may no longer be considered "evil" by the group via comparison. Certainly, the petty theft will remain negative, but it will pale in comparison to the act of murder.Pro1 - ConclusionThe label of "evil" will be adapted to suit the perception of reality by virtue of being comparative. This means that there will be evil in the world as long as sentient beings exist to understand and exercise moral judgment. Even if all possibility of harm were stripped from reality, "evil" would still persist due to the existence of "good". In order for evil to be legitimately removed, all means of comparison would have to be removed, which in turn demands that all possibilities but one cease to exist.By nature of the trait, an omnibenevolent being *must* perform the most beneficial action within its power and knowledge. Since the latter two traits pare also possessed by this being, there exists only one possible action that can be performed. As noted above, the act of eliminating evil would entail eliminating sentience, itself, which would utterly destroy humanity, thus, would be an action of greater evil than to permit its existence.P2 - Argument of IrrelevanceSince life is finite, and what exists afterwards is either eternity (afterlife) or non-existence (nothing), the suffering and evil that occurs in this word is irrelevant in comparison. Should one die and ascend to Heaven for eternity, the near-infinite period of time of suffering is almost infinitely irrelevant once the latter is significantly experienced. Should one descend to Hell, the eternal suffering will overshadow the previous worldly suffering in the same respect. Should there be nothing awaiting us but an end to our existence, our experiences are ultimately irrelevant.Since God would possess the trait of omniscience, the outcome is already known. In the case of an afterlife, it is not the physical form of the being that matters, but rather the spiritual form, or a soul. The existence of an afterlife would necessitate the existence of a soul.To link with my first argument, perhaps what should be the basis of judging evil should not be whether one's physical body is brought harm, but rather, one's eternal spiritual essence. We [almost] absolutely reject this concept: that bringing permanent harm to another's soul is impossible, so it is not considered in our comparative judgment of morality.If it *were* possible for a man to harm another's soul or even to condemn another to Hell for all eternity, THAT would be the basis of evil, rather than the basis we have now. If an eternal soul exists, then all finite suffering is irrelevant by comparison to infinite suffering. It is possible that such a being has *already* removed that possibility from existence, and thus, our definition only addresses what we understand to be possible.