OK. Please clarify what you're referring to.The two premises and the conclusion. The entire argument.
Why do you disagree with this premise? Are you saying that good is optional?We need good in the world.
This is the premise where we get into trouble.We can't have good without evil.
The conclusion here is at least half true. Logically, we can have good without evil, but in the real world, enduring evil is often the price of experiencing good later on.Therefore, we must endure evil to experience good.
Anyway, Christian apologist William Lane Craig's theodicy is that God can have reasons to allow evil for now so we are well off in the end. So he's implying that we suffer evil because suffering evil is necessary even for God to grant us good for us later on.
Good. Then we agree on at least that much.I totally understand that that is not true.