please take this as sincere advice and not hostile criticism, but this has been posted a gazillion times here already. you may wish to search for tags before posting something like this. we all know about epicurus already. and i have answered, not quite a gazillion times, but often enough, that none of this disproves the existence of god, not that there is any need to do so, and if there was a need, which god would be disproven first (or should we start with the tooth fairy)? the possibility of there being a malevolent god, for example, doesn't disprove the existence of a god; it just disproves the existence of a GOOD god. and why call him god is kind of silly, since the religion prevalent in epicurus' lifetime had a whole pantheon of gods, most of whom behaved pretty badly. there are no gods and they do not need disproving. there just aren't any and no one has put forth any reason why i should revise that statement. epicurus thought he was logicking out proof that there is no god, or are no gods (though he speaks in the singular). it wasn't necessary.

g

There is no good or evil. There is pain and pleasure, compassion and cruelty, foolishness and wisdom, ext. The yin needs the yang and the yang needs the yin. What is light if there is no darkness?

Atheists believe there is no God and many claim that the belief in God is illogical. However, most do not attempt to prove this. This is Epicurus’ attempt to prove atheism. His literary style presents it as a series of rhetorical questions and leaves it to the reader to draw the atheistic conclusion. But put in standard premises and a conclusion it becomes:

1. If there exists a God, it is both all powerful (omnipotent) and all good (omnibenevolent).
2. An all powerful being is able to prevent all evil, and an all good being is willing to prevent all evil.
3. If there exists a being who is both able and willing to prevent all evil no evil would exist.
4. But some evil does exist.
   Therefore, there does not exist a God.

This is a formally valid proof--and every seminary student knows it; so to get around the conclusion they have to hold that at least one of the premises is false.

The two answers I'm aware of state that evil is a privation of Good (Augustine), god's did not create it; also if god prevented evil, man could not be free

Ant Farm

Lots of ifs... But, there is no god

People seem to equate God with good. Tell them to read the bible and they soon see a different God.

Which non-existent entity are you referring to?

And that's about the nub of it