Evil is merely the absence of good
What we perceive as "evil" is not evil but the absence of good.
We perceive acts as "evil" only because we cannot see the benefits in them. In reality, these acts are not evil, but are actually "good".
Evil does not exist. We perceive acts to be evil because we are unable to see the benefit they offer.
We arrogantly decide that the world would be better off without evils because they are bad deeds that cause suffering and harm. From God’s perch, we would see that there is no such thing as evil. What we perceive as evils, suffering and tragedy are often outweighed by the benefits of the struggle against them, making them good acts, not evil acts. For example, if a mother loses her child to a rare disease, the development of personal traits like strength and courage far outweigh the struggle she faces. The removal of all the things we perceive as “evil” from the world would make the world a worse place, not a better place. As such, evil as we define it does not exist. Our understanding of evil stems from our epistemological limitations and inability to comprehend the net advantages of seemingly "evil" acts.
This argument is not very convincing when examined in the context of history. Few would argue that the holocaust survivor that lost every member of their family in the death camps of Eastern Europe gained so much from the experience as to outweigh the loss of their loved ones. If God was truly omnipotent, God would be able to bring the same positive outcomes to fruition without the evils taking place. By permitting the evils, even if they bring a positive outcome that outweighs the negative outcomes, God is either not omnipotent (because God cannot bring the benefits to pass without the evils) or not benevolent (because God can bring the benefits without the evils but chooses not to). Finally, resorting to an argument that hinges on the limits of our epistemological understanding falls into the trap of inductive scepticism. If we cannot hope to understand objective good and objective evil, then why bother trying to understand ethics at all? Why try and act in a “right” way? If seemingly abhorrent actions actually have a net “good” impact, then why not carry out genocidal acts without any moral reservations?
Enter the framing of the argument here ...
[P1] Evil acts are those that have more negative impacts on the world than positive ones. [P2] No acts have more negative impacts on the world than positive ones. [P3] Therefore, evil does not exist.
[Rejecting P1] If God was omnipotent and benevolent, he would be able to provide the positive impacts without the negative impacts. [Rejecting P2] History indicates that some acts have more negative impacts than positive impacts.
Enter more information about the argument here ...