>>201
>>200 said that it doesn't debunk deism. that's fairly obvious, since
>>197 is just an argument against the existence of a non-malevolent and all powerful deity, not against all deities. the argument suggests that if there is a god who is all powerful, he is then malevolent. it doesn't even claim that no all powerful god exists.
anyway, able to prevent evil but unwilling to stop it doesn't imply malevolence, it implies lack of benevolence, which isn't the same thing. it's neutrality.