The Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy.

//You assume that omnibenevolence is by a human moral standard. Omnibenevolence literally means ‘always fair -ness' most definitions call it 'all loving' but my point applies to both terms. 'fairness' 'love' 'UUE' by definition, within moral relativism, are all relative and subjective. What is fair for one is not necessarily fair for another.// You just stated that an omnibenevolent god is, by definition, always fair. So, if it is always fair, it should be fair to everyone, in everyone's eyes, instead of just one being. //What is lovely for one is not necessarily lovely for another. What is evil for one is not necessarily evil for another. They fail the moral 'categorical imperative'[Kant. et al.]. Their application to all human subjects let alone divine subjects(Whose moral standard you have no objective way of knowing!). Give me one example of what is universally evil, fair or lovely. Rape, child starvation, unneeded slaughter, natural disasters are evils only to people who share your moral belief. God may see these things as love, prove he doesn't. You can't.// You just told me to prove a negative. The B.o.P is upon you to prove that God does have a moral code separate from us, since you are the one asserting he does. You can;t just say prove that he doesn't; that is fail. You have the B.o.P and you cannot just try and pass it on. It is logically upon you. //To say omnibenevolence of an omnipotent figure is impossible is absurd. You assume that the figures moral code is your moral code! With your hypothetical situation that the Christian god exists you assume that his divine omniscience morality is like yours.// And you are the one -asserting- it isn't. The B.o.P is upon you. //His morality might be better than ours, after all he's omniscience and you're not.// I think you mean omni benevolent. And you used the wrong form of omniscient right there. //What is good/fair/lovely is just the absence of what is malicous/evil/bad. There is a ethical scale of what is good or evil, remove the furthest pole of what is evil, exterminationism for example, the scale will shift. If I remove all evil acts you will be left with only good acts, correct? What is good will lose its meaning when there is no opposing standard.// Actually, there will be neutral actions left. For instance, a good act would be to pick up a pencil someone dropped. A neutral act would be to not help, but not hurt either. //All actions will become simply neutral, nothing will be good because nothing will be bad. In a sentence: Goodness as an absolute it's fully consistent and reliant on other postulates concerning moral value.// Wrong. Neutrality would be a zero, and good acts would rank higher than zero. See my pencil dropping analogy above. Neutral acts, you neither help nor hinder. Good acts, you help. Bad acts, you hinder. Nothing too confusing there. //Under the Status Quo and most schools of thought and rhetoric, a Burden of Proof can be relinquished.// Yes, but that doesn't mean it: -Is of good conduct to do so -Can be done with such a controversial topic -Can just be passed off without acceptance. It is unfair to try and pass of a B.o.P when you are asserting something. I.e. Prove God exists. Prove he doesn't. Argument ad infinitum. //Are you content?// Sure, why not. //--->This topic is not controversial relative to most mainstream debate topics.// I'm sure many others aside from myself would beg to differ.