An omni-god can avoid the problem of evil

My opponent still has not addressed the best of all possible universes being a necessary condition from an all knowing all powerful god. Although I do accept that the holocaust and child rape cannot be reconciled by an all powerful being if the being could not do so but in the definition of freewill this god may choose not to stop these things (and if god chooses to not stop something instead of not being able to stop something still makes him all powerful the definition of omnipotence does not breakdown) since the creations that are subjected to his laws of physics are free to choose whether or not they want to perform such terrible acts to there fellow subjects. Since giving his subjects freewill is a necessary condition of his infinite love things like the holocaust and child rape are necessary conditions of his creation since some of the individuals that have freewill will act in accordance with evil instead of in accordance with goodness. Again my opponent gives his god a false alternative by creating a case where humans are omnipotent by bending the laws of physics "either he renders his subjects omnipotent and they have free will" or "god renders his subjects sterile with human like attributes and they do not have freewill." However we know this not to be true since god in his infinite wisdom and infinite power (which is presupposed by my opponent) created the laws of gravity. If a human were able to bend the laws of gravity this would be a violation of his omniscience and omnipotence and thus the definition of god would breakdown. We would not expect an infinitely rational being to contradict himself in this way and thus we have the laws of gravity which a human can not violate as a necessary condition. So what is a human left with? P1. Humans can operate with freewill so long as they do not violate the laws of physics P2. Freewill within the laws of physics consist partly of performing deeds that are good or terribly evil P3. Some will choose to do deeds that are terribly evil because of probability C. Things like holocaust and child rape can and will occur as a necessary condition My opponent postulates that a god that can design us with freewill can design us not to rape children or perform horrible acts such as the ones in the holocaust. However, as we see this does not in anyway violate the laws of physics thus it is within man's freewill to perform such acts. What it is in violation of however, is god's definition of freewill since this would be restricting man to be good thus rendering god a tyrant. Rendering god a tyrant makes him not just and thus not good making the definition of god breakdown since 1 of the 3 necessary premises that make god a god are missing. Since god in his infinite rationality cannot contradict himself his scenario is not possible. My opponent also has an objection to the fact that interfering in man's freewill makes god a tyrant. I would come back and argue how is this not the definition of a tyrant? Let us define god as x and let us define man as y. If x imposes his will on y without the knowledge of y what does this render y as? It renders y as powerless. If x imposes his will on y without the knowledge of y what does this render x as? It renders x as all powerful. In this definition that god is exercising his power. Let us leave this example for now and look up the definition of tyrant: a person exercising power in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way. My opponent would want god to interfere in some cases (such as in the case of child rape or the holocaust) that he sees fit and he would want god to stay out of others (rendering man as omnipotent by bending the rules of physics.) Since he wants to see god interfere in some cases but not in others he wants god to exercise his power arbitrarily. So then my opponent's view of god falls into the definition of a tyrant.