Not that changing "evil" to "calamity" or "disaster" really helps God all that much. 

Ok, fine "I create calamity" like Burger King's motto says, "Have it Yahwey" .

Thanks dad, I apreciate all the ecoli, wildfires, cancer, child famine, earthquakes, tsunamis, drought, aids. Thank you dad for all the "calamity|". I'd prefure a safe house to live in, but I guess that is too much to ask of an "all powerfull being".

This is no different than the dodge I got in a endless thread about Malachi 2:3 "behold, I will coorupt your seed and spread DUNG upon your faces"

A theist responded, "No no no....the NIV says "refuse" not "dung"".

I responded, "STFW? Trash or dung, would god spread it in your face?"

Theist ,"It's metaphore, it's like when your dad threatens to knock you into neXt tuesday, for not doing your chores".

Ok, let me get this streight? God is capable of, and willing and without doubt, torture you for eternity in unimaginable pain, but a simple parlor trick like rubbing a puppy's face in the pee when they soil the carpet, that is out of the question? So if rubbing trash or poo in your face is metaphore, why would "hell" not be? IT'S CALLED CHERRY PICKING!

But as far as "evil" the only way the God concept can work is to not atribute "all powerfull" to it. As soon as you use the word |"all" that means unlimited and unrestricted capability and evil would be under that "all" claim, otherwise you are in contradiction of the word "all" by putting a limit on it.

The other dodge I have gotten is "God said he wouldnt do that". That as well is a claim, and doesnt adress the peramiters of ability.

If god cant commit evil, then god is not all powerfull, if god can commit evil(even just sit by and watch evil happen) why call such a being all loving?

Here is the explination theists dont want to face, and it is so simple it is patently absurd that the theist cannot see it.

SHIT HAPPENS! There is no Harry Potter or Luke Skywaker in the sky looking to save their followers. Bad things happen, not because we want bad things to affect us, merely because they are observable and do happen.

Which makes the most sense?

"Lightening is caused by Thor who is expressing anger at humans"

"Lightening is caused by positive and negitive charges in the atmosphere"

There is no divine Superman in the sky pulling strings just as their isnt a magical man with a pitchfork manipulating the neurons in our brains making us do bad things.

"calamity" and "evil" are natural events that we negitively react to because they frighten us and can damage us. But crossing your fingers, carrying a rabbits foot, or facing mecca is an exorsize in futility.

What does work is STUDY without inserting a fictional super hero vs a fictional super villian. It is because of Geological study that we know what plate techonics are. It is because of study of building material that we can build better buildings in earthquake prone areas. 

Prayer works on cancer as well as a Ouiji board or tarrot cards. Biologists, scientists and doctors have discovered how to combat this desease without atributing it to a man with a pitchfork.

"evil" is a term humans use to discribe things they cant explain. Explaining cancer does not mean you advocate every human getting it. It just means by studying it and understanding it, you can do better in the future to minimize harm. 

The term comes out of fear. The way to beat "fear/evil" is to not make up superstitious claims as to why it happens, and study it and find out how it works in order to combat it.