>>"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?
>
I believe the Argument From Evil is used to disprove an omnipotent,
personal, benevolent god. A more appropriate analogy would be if you had
the power to wave your hand and effortlessly remove every bum's poverty
forever. If you chose not to, yes, I think that would show a certain
amount of malice on your part.
>>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?
>
If the bacteria taught each other that you were a loving benefactor, your
actions would prove them wrong.