God exists

Introduction I will now respond to the objections that Pro raised to my argument. With that said, let me begin. Atheist Argument from Evil Pro objects to my evidential argument from evil by claiming that we are not in a good position to assess the probability of why God allows certain evils to take place, and that within our finite point of view we can't understand the whole framework God has set out. This kind of response to the problem of evil is called Skeptical Theism, which is the view that we cannot know whether a given evil is gratuitous, because God might have a good reason for allowing that evil to take place. For example, God might allow a certain type of evil to take place in order to bring about a greater good. But this objection to the evidential argument from evil is not satisfactory, for consider this example offered by the philosopher Stephen Law. Imagine there exist an all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly evil God. Like the morally perfect God, he is extremely powerful and wise, but he differs from the morally perfect God because he is perfectly evil. This being is maximally cruel and has the strongest desire to inflict suffering and evil in the world. Now I would argue that the idea that such a being exist is silly, and in order to demonstrate that I would provide an evidential argument from good. There is too much love, laughter and rainbows to reasonably conclude that such a being exist. But if the evidential argument from good is sufficient to conclude that a perfectly evil God probably does not exist, then it seems equally true that the evidential argument from evil is sufficient to conclude that a perfectly good God probably does not exist. Pro used Skeptical Theism as a way to save the perfectly good God from refutation. However, I can flip this objection around and use it to defend the existence of a perfectly evil God. To show this, let me modify some quotes from Pro: "Firstly, I think that my contender doesn't understand that we don't have a good position to attempt to assess the probability of whether [evil God] has the ultimate reason for why [good] exists. " "We must remember that within our finite point of view we can't understand the whole framework which [evil God] has set out. "So, the point is that Pro may be correct in saying that a perfectly good God might let certain evils happen in order to bring about a greater good. But it seems equally true that a perfectly evil God might let certain goods happen in order to bring about a greater evil. Therefore, it looks like these two justifications cancel each other out, and Skeptical Theism is made meaningless. The evil God hypothesis can also be used as a response to the free will objection Pro gave. I will now modify a quote from him a second time:"[Evil God] gave us this free will knowing that thousands would choose [right] but he did it so that people would choose [bad] because without [brightness] and good you know no [sadness]. "Moreover, it seems quite clear that the morally perfect God, if he existed, could have given us free will without us choosing evil. For example, the morally perfect God could have given us both free will and moral perfection, thus resulting in us choosing the good in every situation. [1]Even if the free will defense was true, it still wouldn't explain the many natural evils that happen in our world. Hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, forest fires, droughts and volcanos are not caused by humans acting on their free will. Rather, they are just the unfortunate way nature is set up. After putting forth skeptical theism and the free will defense, Pro then goes on to talk about a movie called the The Giver. This explanation of the movie was not an argument and for that reason there is no need for me to respond to it. Conclusion Pro raises a number of reasonable objections to my arguments, but ultimately they are unsuccessful. Sources in comments