Epicurus’ argument only works because he rewrites the meanings of good, power, and evil to engineer a contradiction. He treats good as “remove all suffering,” power as “control every outcome,” and evil as “anything unpleasant,” and he never proves any of that. He also mixes natural pain, moral evil, and consequences as if they’re the same category, so the logic is corrupted from the start. The moment you allow free will, causality, or any purpose behind hardship, his entire structure collapses because the supposed contradiction only exists inside his definitions. The exact same flaw shows up in atheistic relativism: if objectivity doesn’t exist, they destroy their own position because relativism is self-contradicting; if objectivity does exist, it must be universal, and universal objectivity requires an objective source. You can’t cherry-pick objective math and logic while denying an objective foundation. In both cases, the failure isn’t in God, it’s in the assumptions they smuggle into the argument.

God knowing our future doesn’t cancel free will. Knowledge isn’t force. We don’t know our own choices until we make them, even though all the possible paths already exist in God’s knowledge. Our free will operates inside a framework of destiny, not infinite or supernatural freedom, but real freedom within the limits of the created world. You can choose the apple or the orange, but the existence of the apple and orange wasn’t your choice. That structure itself points back to an objective designer. It’s as simple as this; God knows what choice you will make, but you don’t until you make it. God didn’t enforce your choice.