The Problem of Evil is insufficient an argument against the Christian God

I will be focusing more on trying to solve the problem such that it no longer becomes a valid objection. I will be talking about unnecessary evil, such as described by Pro. (Some of the information here would be taken from website and places which I will not cite. I will just say that the concept is not exactly original, but the wording is. This is to avoid charges of plagiarism) Accepting the premises to be true, then P1. There is evil in this world P2. God is good P3. God is omnipotent and omnipresent Conclusion: A good God allows evil into this world. Now I will discuss the main objections. If what P2-3 says about God is true, then the next logical premise is that He would eliminate it because He would want to eliminate what goes against His qualities. However, we know of the evil in this world, all the pain, suffering, disease. To innocent people, no less. Thus it must be concluded that God is neither good, nor omnipotent, nor omnipresent and this makes a contradiction. Or is it? In my attempt to solve this puzzle, I will use the concept of free will as popularized by Alvin Plantinga. (For this debate, I will assume that the Bible is accurate. Thus, the focus can be more narrow on the Problem of Evil) God has allowed every human something called free will. This allows us to choose to follow His will, or to depart from His ways. It also allows us to make everyday choices. But doesn"t the idea of free will contradict an omnipotent God? That is, an omnipotent God who created an entirely virtuous world filled with virtuous people. This is contradicted by the fact that God cannot do a nothing. What is a nothing? A nothing is a logical contradiction. This logical contradiction comes in various forms, the most common being that of "An all-powerful God creating a stone too heavy for Him to lift." This statement may seem good on the surface, but when examined closer, it falls apart. It basically states "A being that can lift anything creating something too heavy for that being to lift." So how can the idea of free will contradicting God"s omnipotence be a logical contradiction? The answer, I propose, is simple. God is simple. Simple means that He is not composed of parts. This is because he is self-existent and cannot be composed of parts. Therefore, "The Will of God" is the same as "the omnipotence of God." They both refer to the same being. This means that every of God"s attributes qualifies his other attributes. This is not in any way contradictory. It then must be asked, Why did God allow us free will? Basically, if we did not have free will, we would just be automatons and it is impossible to love something that cannot love back. Love is mutual. Thus, an elimination of evil would lead to an elimination of good. One might argue here. Oh, then what about a world without evil or good? Is that possible? Are there absolutely neutral actions? Now that PoE by means of humans has been addressed, it then brings us to the topic of Natural Evil. Like that of Pompeii. There are several possible explanation for this. I will just focus on the one given by Plantinga. Natural evils are the result of the Fall. This means that all natural disasters, diseases, etc. are the result of the ongoing punishment meted out to Adam and Eve for their disobedience. Now I will go to the topic of is it an objection enough? Firstly the question must be asked, Does the objector have the same problem? Yes they do. The objector has to account for the problem without saying that there is no evil. This is impossible. Christianity is the only religion/worldview that has a good answer to the problem of evil. Thus, comparatively, the problem of evil cannot be used against Christianity because to point a finger means that there are three fingers pointing back. Based on my opponents criticism, I will revise and strengthen my arguments as needs be. I know this is not the best, but this is my first debate on PoE and I"ve never really discussed the topic before.