I dont believe in evil, but saying you need evil to understand good is lame. There is absolutely no need to know about evil to know about "good"...there are enough natural events like diseases, hurricanes, earthquakes, accidents, fires, etc. that kill and hurt people to know about the opposite of that crap. Evil is completely unnesscary...and does not ensure we know about good. 

Because God doesn't rule Earth... he rules Heaven. Satan is called "The Prince of the air" for a reason. He rules over Earth from what I understand. God is in Heaven and Satan is here... where hell will be.

Do you guys see the similarities between Santa Claus and god?

I guess that depends on what you think evil is. Natural events that results in pain is evil to me. Without them you cant know what a good life is

You might want to go look up some writings by Chesteron.  He ended up trying to look at crtitics of Christianity.  He said he got confused, because a handful would be critical of it for one reason, and another handful would be critical of it for exactly opposite reasons.  In trying to find answers, and not just rebel as its own ends, he ended up becoming a strong convert to Christianity.

A lot of issues involved with the evil side of things is that people get upset at context that defines things.  Should we have a world, for example, where knives don't cut?  But put the knife in another context cutting and it can do harm.  Same with the said robbing of a bank.  So, is God supposed to then stop people leaving banks with money?  But it is a robbery.  So I guess maybe God is supposed to engineer matter to tell the difference and act accordingly, or going into every single situation where it happens and stops it.

There are many tragedies that occur that are not the result of required geographic factors required to sustain as world where people can survive. Also if a god existed then not only does he fail to prevent tragedies but has designed us in a way there our food and air go down the same tube allowing for us to easily choke by accident, which by itself (which it is not) is enough for me to balk at the concept of intelligent design.

As yes it could be worse but surely given infinite power one would want to provide people with the best world where certain people based on the physioilogy or geographic location would not suffer hardships so unfairly, Just because the world does not seem terrible to you does not mean others dont have terrible lives through no fault of their own and receive no help from an absentee god.

Adnd the idea that you cant appreciate happiness without experiencing pain is simply a false assumption that people make, which applies doubly to the people who die from their pain and will never again experinece happiness again to appreciate.

You did not respond to the content of my post. Perhaps it's you who can't read? I've bolded it for you in the quotation above so you can try again, okay?

*Sigh*

It's not my onus to disprove a god, it's on the claim maker to prove their case. Anything claimed without evidence can be rejected without evidence. I'm not making the claim that there is no god, I'm simply maintaining the default position that there exists no sufficient evidence for the claim that one exists. I assume you don't maintain the position that leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, fairies, or santa claus exist?

The issue isn't considering the viewpoint, it's that the viewpoint has no evidence at all. I consider it every day and every day I see no one has provided any additional arguments. That leads to two conclusions - they are incapable of forming an argument OR there isn't one. In either case, the claim remains unproven and completely without merit.

Do you believe in ghosts or healing crystals? Or astrology? These are no better than religion, but they have less influence.

Are you capable of responding to the argument in my post instead of launching character insults or are you too upset by the realization that your delicate belief system is indefensible from the standpoint of logic and reason?

1. This poll does not call into question the nature of omnipotence.

2. Never said it was a restriction.

Para 1: Line 1: Many tragedies and no examples, not that they would even be relevant to my comment.

Para 1: Line 2: I'm sure you'd find flaws in an organic structure with a separate orifice for eating and breathing.  Mortality is full of inherent flaws but the efficient function of organic systems speaks of a universe not badly designed. 

Para 2: Line 1: geographical issues are self-inflicted wounds upon human history.  Humans have created that situation themselves over generations and the solution to said problems is within the capacity of modern civilxation to quickly correct.  While these lives may seem "terrible", you cannot know how much assistance those people are receiving through divine means.  Religious organizations, after all, have long been the most proactive groups in providing aid for those people.  

Para 3: Line 1: I have not committed to that logical fallicy, though if there is indeed a life after this one, those who have died from their pain may be experiencing a realm far better than you can possibly conceive.  They may "never again experience happiness" in our world, but to assume the impossiblity of experiencing happiness in another based on that alone is logically fallacious in of itself.

I am more likely to see differences.  With Santa, there isn't a contigent of people who go on forums after not believing and post messages to deconvert people froma  belief in Santa.