>
>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.

No, actually the contrapositive in this case is:
~R implies ~P or ~Q. This means if God is not omnipotent, then he is either not willing to stop evil or not able to stop evil. This is logically equivalent to the original statement, and if one is true, then both are true.

Remember that for contrapositives, you swap the position of the two sides of the equation and negate both sides.

>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.

Again, I think you're mistaken. The contrapositives actually are as follows:
- If God is not omnipotent, then he is either not willing or not able to stop evil.
- If God is not malevolent, then he is either not able to stop evil, or he is willing to stop evil.
- If evil cometh, then God is either not able or not willing to stop evil.
- If God is not worthy of being called God, then he either able or willing to stop evil (and doesn't).


>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.

This is wrong because you got the contrapositives wrong...

>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.

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that God is omnipotent and therefore able to stop evil, but doesn't, because he is not willing? Then that would fall in Epicurus's category that God is malevolent.

>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.

This is a good point. But didn't God create evil, since he created everything? If we are evil, it is because God made us that way. Because even if Satan tempted us, God created Satan, so in the end, God is still responsible for evil...

Of course, personally I believe in free will, I think God allows evil to exist so that we have the choice to accept/embrace it or choose to deny it... that's part of his means of testing our moral integrity.