How did Epicurus’s argument about evil influence later debates about God’s existence?

In the philosophy of religion, the argument attributed to Epicurus serves as a foundational challenge to the existence of a deity who is simultaneously omnipotent and perfectly good. The argument is famously summarized as: "Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"1

This dilemma, popularized in modern discourse by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, has significantly influenced debates on God’s existence by providing a basis for atheism. The logic posits that if a perfectly good and all-powerful being existed, evil would not; since evil exists, the traditional theistic God does not.1

In response, thinkers have developed theodicies and "defenses" to reconcile the presence of moral and natural evil with divine attributes. Common strategies include:

• Free Will Defense: Arguing that moral evil is a necessary consequence of human freedom, which is a greater good.12
• Soul-Making Theodicy: Suggesting that natural evils provide necessary opportunities for maturing, learning, and cultivating virtues like courage.12
• Best of All Possible Worlds: The view, notably held by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, that God created the world with the greatest possible number of perfections, where some evil may be a necessary component of a larger, harmonious whole.12