First, being omnipotent is an assumption. He is not. Omnipotence is a logical fallacy. Not being able or willing to prevent evil assumes that he never does or will.
Do you even critically read what you write? If he is not omnipotent, if that is a logical fallacy (you've given no justification for that claim), then how can he ever decide to prevent evil? (Keep in mind that you wrote in the same brief paragraph that your goy god is not omnipotent, but that the statement is false because it assumes that he never "does or will," which would be the only assumption to make if he is not omnipotent.
Always preventing 'evil' would of necessity preclude free will. Precluding free will would be inconsistent with a benevolent God.
You provide no reasons to believe these claims of yours to the effect that preventing evil would preclude free will (it would only preclude exercising free will to do "evil."); or that precluding free will would be inconsistent with benevolence. These are unsubstantiated claims, and, effectively, ipse dixit
Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil?
Your free choice to choose.
Ah, blaming the victim. It is certainly not my
choice that someone else acts in a manner consistent with what is called evil. That was truly a feeble riposte.
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Because he is both able and willing but chooses to give us the chance to do it ourselves.
You will call him god because "he" will allow evil which he could prevent, and for which the victims are not necessarily responsible. Really, this is just too incoherent. You're just shooting from hip, and arguing for argument's sake, and not because you actually have a reasonable answer.