>"Either god would remove evil out of this world and cannot, or he can
>and will not, or he has not the power nor will, or lastly he has both
>the power and will. If he has the will and not the power, this shows
>weakness, which is contrary to the nature of god. If he has the power
>and not the will, it is malignity, and this is no less contrary to his
>nature.
Nonsense. I (and you too I suspect) have the power to give $50 to the next
bum which sp'rchange?es me on the corner. But I have not the will to. Is
that proof of my (or your) malicious nature?
>And if he is neither able nor willing he is both impotent and
>malignant and consequently cannot be god. And if he is both willing
>and able, which alone is consonant with the nature of god, whence
>comes evil?
Epicurus assumes "evil" from <God's> perspective is the same "evil" as seen
from a human perspective. A dubious assumption. The mass slaughter I just
performed on the toilet bowl I'm sure was "evil" from a bacteria's
perspective, but from mine it was a simple cleaning, devoid of ethical
question. Why would one assume a <God's> perspective relative to us to be
any different?
-Prof. Tim