Free will vs Problem of evil

My opponent will have to make the case that the problem of evil is refuted by free will, I will take the counter that free will is no an adequate rebuttal to the problem of evil. First we must define the god we are talking about, as right from the beginning the problem of evil is only a problem for specific gods. So lets define god: The all powerful, all good, perfect creator of the universe and heaven.

By adequate, I mean that the response makes it possible for this god to exist.

My opponent should start his argument in the first round but, not argue in the final round but simply put the word "done." Anything more then that should automatically forfeit the points for conduct.

Quick question. If I lose points for conduct, I can still win right?
Second, I will not make any arguments in this round, you may begin in Round 2, thus it is fair for me to submit the final round rebuttal correct?

Third - what is "problem of evil/free will" please define in our next submission.

Fourth - do i get ground on the existence of god/who god is? As of now it's still rather vague.

To start, my opponent is new here, so I can't say it was intentional, but to not argue in the first round when strictly asked to, does come off as a shady way of trying to shift the burden of proof. This argument was designed for him to put forth the positive argument, and me to refute the argument that free will debunks the problem of evil. He has in effect put me in the spot to make straw man arguments to debunk it

So, anyway, when the problem of evil comes up in any of its variants theists, presumably Christians, will jump on the free will bandwagon. God gave us free will so he can't interfere is the line of reasoning, It often times comes in the form of: do you want us all to be robots. Again, I don't know that this is my opponents position at all, but blame him for failing to start the debate. So, I will go over this one as I have room to type and a round to waste. There are many problems with this excuse, that is what it is, it is not a rebuttal but an excuse.

God gave us free will so he can't interfere. Many problems here firstly he designed us and is all knowing so he knows the results of our design and free will mixed together, so in the end his design decisions still counter those of a perfect god. He made poor design decisions to say the least. We can see that if a god designed us there were designs that limited out ability to act and commit evil. For instance, I can not punch a man's heart clear out of his chest. Yet, a grown man can rape and murder a child. An all powerful all knowing god could have made a better design where our brains disallowed us to do this. You can't say he needed to give us free will to get around this, why because it has already been clearly pointed out that other design decisions make it impossible for us to carry out this will.

The next problem with Free will is it is special pleading. The only thing we have to compare god to is moral beings. IN no other case would a person accept this. That being is perfecty moral, yet they watched the child get raped. Whether it be a person, or a super intelligent alien, the person observing this would instantly question the morality of the being who just sat and watched a child get raped. So, far the only excuse I have heard is this is god you can't hold him to the same standards as us. Yes,I agree. We are not morally perfect, nor are we all powerful. Therefore when analyzing whether this type of god exists, there is no way we should be looking at something that is so clearly a lower standard then what we expect of ourselves and saying well thats ok for god. We should be holding god to higher standards then us.

Another big problem for this god and free will is this. If god was capable of creating heaven, you know a place where none of these evils exist, then there is no reason that an all powerful god couldn't have just created this place to begin and skip the place with child suffering. Are we just robots in heaven. If we are why do you want to get there so badly if that is so bad? If we aren't how would one justify the claim that not being able to commit such acts as genocide, child rape, torture, and so on would turn us into robots, when in your very worldview you have a place where this does not happen and yet we are not robots. Contradiction much?

Another a problem is usually the people who claim this, will usually believe in the bible. This is strange as time and time again god interferes in the world in the bible. God delivers victory to Jepthah, he inflicts plagues on the Egyptians, he returns as Jesus and performs miracles. These clearly shows god can step in on free will issues. These same people will give god credit for helping them in their lives. This is clearly stepping in, with free will. A god who answers prayers, direct violating the no interference rule, used against the problem of evil, cannot use this as an excuse. The average Christians nonsense idea of this, when they prayed for a raise and got it, god intervened, when a small child prays and is still brutally raped, it is free will. Both sides of the coin much?

The last thing about free will is that free will has nothing to do with natural disasters which indiscriminately kill man woman and child. These people are forced to suffer and die or watch loved ones die, while a loving god does nothing. This has zero to do with free will. It is a disaster that is part of gods apparent plan.

I want to remind my opponent, that this debate is not about whether how we know child rape is wrong, or any of these other things are wrong, so unless he really disagrees with that assertion he should really avoid using that line of questioning.

Im sure according to the genius's on this board that was just a brilliant argument for free will my opponent presented, arguments from last round stand.

one more round.