2 days into my proofs class and I get to use some fundamentals already...you'll have to excuse me if I botch these.

I'll first turn these question into truth statements using these statements:

P:god is willing to prevent evil
Q:god is able to prevent evil
R: god is omnipotent
S: god is malevolent
T: god is worthy to be called God

>Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not
>omnipotent.
if true, this equals: P and ~Q (not Q) implies ~R.

If this statement is true, then the contrapositive is true as well. The contrapositive is, ~P or Q implies R. Since this is true, if god is not willing to stop evil OR if god is able to stop evil then god is omnipotent.

So the contrapostives to Epicurus' questions would be:

Is God not willing to stop evil OR (means only one condition needs to be met) is God able to stop evil? Then God is omnipotent.
Is God willing to stop evil or is God not able to stop evil? Then God is not malevolent.
Is God willing to stop evil or is God able to stop evil? Then God is worthy to be called God.

According to the contrapositives, which have to be true if Epicurus' questions are true, God can be willing to stop evil OR not willing to stop evil, able to stop evil OR not able to stop evil...and still be omnipotent, benevolent, and worthy to be called God.

Epicurus' third question isn't a characterization of God, he's asking if God is willing to stop evil and is able to stop evil...why is there still evil? Maybe God isn't willing to stop evil.

So what is evil? People dying from natural causes? or peopele dying from famines caused by wars/greedy countries that won't share?

I don't think God's job is to save us from ourselves.