Epicurean Paradox
God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can.
If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to God.
If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to God's nature.
If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god.
If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?

 Strange...a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied seventy times seven and invented Hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!  ~Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger

Once upon a time, there was a king who, wishing to amuse himself, ordered the royal elephant to be brought before him. He ordered some blind men, blind from birth, to be brought near the elephant. He then asked these blind men to touch the elephant and describe what the elephant was like. The man who touched the tail said that the elephant was like a broom. The one who touched a leg said that it was like tree. The one who touched the body said it was like a wall. The one who touched the ear said the elephant was like a winnowing fan. Thus each described the elephant differently, but each was sure that his own version was the true description of the elephant. They did not realize that each one touched only a part of the elephant. Each blind person had only a one-sided or unilateral view of the elephant. Not knowing the whole truth, they started arguing with each other, each sticking to his own point of view. The argument ended up in quarreling and fighting. The king and his ministers rolled in laughter as the blind men continued to quarrel with each other. 
The Buddha pointed out that philosophers dispute and quarrel with each other because similarly they see only one side of the truth and they dogmatically cling to their views maintaining that they alone had a monopoly of the truth. All Buddhas, considering and seeing all sides of the truth, only laugh at them. This proves that genuine Buddhism can in no way be called unilateral. According to this Buddhist way of thinking, experience is multifaceted and the Buddhist view is therefore multilateral. If truth is multifaceted, it cannot be stated in a unilateral way.  
    This creation is that of a mental image of a "self in the world". It is also the origin of all anxieties, worries and the whole host of suffering in the world. The cause of the suffering is the attachment to this mental construct and the effort to preserve this delusion through self-centered living. The end of suffering is the end of self-centeredness. The way to the end of suffering is to realize that there is no "self" to be centered on, to suffer, or to be satisfied, other than the mental construct of a "self in the world". 
  Buddhism is therefore not an escape from the real, temporal, material world into an illusory, dream world of wish-fulfillment, where there is life of eternal happiness. It is a freedom from the delusion that creates all unhappiness.