Critique of the Argument from Evil

The argument from evil is an argument for atheism that proposes that since there is such a great amount of evil in the world then this proves there is no God. While the argument is deductively valid, I believe there are faults within the premises of the argument that cause the conclusion to be false. In Core Questions of Philosophy, Elliot Sober discusses three main versions of the argument. In summary, the arguments state that:
“ 1) If God were to exist, then that being would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
2) If an all-PKG being existed, then there would be no evil.
3) There is evil.
Hence there is no God.”
Premise one of the argument is merely our definition of what God is. While there maybe a higher being we have no proof that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or omniscient. For this premise to be completely true, we would all have to agree on what we would consider a God. Sober argues, “the ancient Greeks denied that the gods are all-PKG” (110). Without proof of what characteristics a God actually has, how can we argue that a being must be all-PKG in order to classify as a God. I believe this premise is faulty because it is based solely on our own definition.
Given that premise one were actually true, premise two still shows fault in the argument. Premise two states if there were a God, there would be no evil. If God were all-good and all-knowing, he would not want his people to deal with hardships and pain. He would know when these problems were arising and prevent them. However, God being all-PKG “doesn’t imply that there should be no evil in the world (111).” Not only is this an extreme claim to say absolutely no evil would exist, but it is also argued that some evils are “soul-building” evils. These are the evils that are beneficial in helping us gain knowledge and power from the experience. A world without evil or consequence would give us no opportunity to grow and learn from our actions and dealing with these hard times helps…