Evil proves God does not exist (6)

The problem of evil has been a topic of debate ever since the dawn of religion. I wish my opponent good luck and hope that everyone involved in this debate (including the voters and readers) enjoys this debate to be. I will assume that my opponent has taken the burden of proof since he is the instigator of the debate and is contesting a well known resolution. If my opponent has any concerns over these terms I'd ask him to discuss it with me in the comments section to prevent this debate from going off topic and shifting focus to who carries the burden of proof. Rebuttal & Main ArgumentNow I will address my opponents opening argument, and by doing so will create my own constructive argument. The two lines of reasoning Con asks us consider have a few similarities. Both arguments have three propositions, and the same structure:1) A premise stating two entities that cannot co-exist2) A premise stating the existence of one of the previously mentioned entities3) A conclusion stating that the entity from premise 1 that is not present in premise 2 does not existAnother similarity is supposed controversy over the first premises. My opponent tries to draw such parallels between the two arguments so he may attempt to disprove one by disproving the other. Con has failed to state a crucial different between the two lines of reasoning though. My opponent states:"Even if everyone agrees that rabbits exist, this argument doesn't work, because there is no explicit contradiction between rabbits existing and aliens from another world also existing. "Con makes a similar statement on the next argument. These statements claim the arguments are unsound because the first premise of each line of reasoning is false. The crucial difference is that there is indeed a contradiction between God and evil; the first premise of the second argument is not inherently false. Lets look at the second argument by it self:1) If evil exists then God does not exist.2) evil does exist.3) Therefore God does not exist. According to definition God is morally good, omniscient and omnipotent. On the premise that evil exists because we see examples of its existence quite frequently, God sees the existence of all evil (because he is omniscient), he is able to rid the world of all evil (because he is omnipotent) and has the will to extinguish all evil (because he is morally good). My new argument proves the first premise of the common line of reasoning used to confirm the resolution "Evil proves God does not exist". My opponent has assumed that there is no contradiction between God and Evil. The initial premise from the first argument has no contradiction between its two subjects but the definition of God does indeed clash with the existence of Evil. I have not introduced any new premises to the debate and have simply used or derived from already existing ones from my opponents arguments and definitions. So as the audience sees I have not assumed any premises--which is opposite of what Cons quotation suggested I would do to respond to the dismissal of the proposition "If evil exists then God does not exist". My current argument for this round ends here with the same argument my opponent has brought up. I will take the liberty of extending the argument so it shall rely on more self evident premises.1. God is all good, powerful and knowing. He is also the first cause.2. evil does exist3. (derived from 1 and 2) God knows of any evil and has the will and power to stop it4. (derived from 1) Since God is the first cause, all good and all powerful, he did not create evil.5. (derived from 3 and 4) evil does not exist.2 and 5 contradict each other. Since the proposition 2 is evidently true proposition 5 is false.1) If evil exists then God does not exist.2) evil does exist.3) Therefore God does not exist.1. The existence of evil is a premise in a sound argument God does not exist2. Evil proves God does not existQ. E. D. Closing StatementsMy opponent has chosen an interesting opening to the Con side of the problem of evil by claiming the premise God and Evil cannot coexist is false on his arguments above. If my opponent decides not to further his opening argument and decides concede it I expect him to bring up popular theodicies taking different angles on the attack of the coexistence impossibility proposition and also well known theodicies attacking the proposition that evil exists. I have spent more of my time than I should have (at this time) because I was so excited about this debate and decided not to wait to submit a full response. I look forward to my opponents reply and again thank him for the debate.