Evil confirms it is likely that god exists

The reference is to the argument of evil AND suffering, as stated. I did not say evil OR suffering because the two are usually used together. The argument using evil and suffering to prove that God cannot exist usually follows the reasoning that: If a good loving God exist, then how can He allow a little 4 year old girl who is innocent to be run over by a car when she did nothing wrong. The argument takes various forms with different types of scenarios and the conclusion is usually either a good God exists or does not exist. My argument is that it is faulty trying to prove NO god can exist using this argument and also that the presence of E&S can prove a god can exist. Let"s say a good God cannot exist because E&S is present then the option by default is not that no God exists but rather that an evil god can exist causing evil. If a good God cannot exist because He created evil and therefore is also evil then it is quite likely that an evil god must have created evil and therefore allows evil. So quite obviously, the likelihood that an evil god exists is greater than no god or a good god. The atheist does not prove anything by establishing a 33.3% probability that a good God cannot exist. The atheist must be able to use this argument to absolutely proof that NO god can exist because E&S is present. The argument used by atheists is a bit biased because it usually only presents the two options mentioned that either God exists or not. As mentioned, there is another option available that gets overlooked and that is why I worded my argument to say "the likelihood that a god" must exist. The third option is quite simply: If God does not exist then why blame God for evil and suffering because E&S is a present reality? Whatever reason can be thought of to explain E&S if God does not exist can also be used to vindicate God"s existence because E&S exists and can therefore exist without being dependent on God"s existence. The focus should not only be whether God exist or not but also if it is justified to make God"s existence depended on the presence of E&S. If it can be shown that E&S is not justified to be used to conclude that God can either exist or not then the options of either God exists or not, becomes irrelevant. I am mentioning this for clarities sake to answer your statement above and not as an argument. So considering all three options but only focusing on two proves only likelihood. The whole E&S argument is based on likelihood. The argument states that if a good God exists then you expect not to see evil & suffering. If there is evil & suffering then it is likely that a good God does not exist. This is the general conclusion. The likelihood is then considered as enough prove to state no God exists. As mentioned, this is a fallacy because it does not consider a third option that an evil god can exist. It is more likely that the alternative option to a good God to explain E&S will be an evil god rather than no god. This substantiates my conclusion that E&S actually proves a likelihood that a god must therefore exist, but in this case, an evil god. Whether the God is good or evil or not is irrelevant because a god exists and that cannot be disproved by the argument. And by the way; You said: I can have Cheerios in my cupboard, but I'm not going to say that proves the likelihood of there being milk in the fridge. Why would you bother having Cheerios if there is no milk in your fridge? Having Cheerios actually does prove there is a likelihood that milk will be in your fridge unless you eat it with coca cola, orange juice or use it for decoration purposes.