A few choice words id say.

[dyresand]

Actually the Epicurus of the Epicurean paradox died in 270BC, which means the 'god(s)' he was referring to had nothing to do with the God of the bible.

How can I say this with any measure of certainity? Let's look at the paradox in detail.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

In greek theology man is basically 'good' unless he is plundered by evil/evil influences. Which 300 years before Christianity is the way most people thought.

Not so in Christianity. In Christianity Man is the physical embodiement of evil.(Romans 3) To stop evil would be the end of all of man kind. Rather than end all evil, God atones for it. In effect He conquers Evil by paying the price for all evil man commits, and releases the sinner from it. IF we simply acknoweledge What God has done.

So how does the Epicurean paradox fail? It wrongly assumes that we are all basicly 'good' and not apart of the evil problem, which is consistant with the greek god/man relationship, but not true with Christianity. So in essence Evil has been conquered without the whole sale destruction of all who practice it.

 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Do you have a meme or youtube video to answer that?