What is the epicuro paradogy and why it proves that god doesn't exist? do you believe in it?
The Epicurean paradox, also known as Epicurus' trilemma, is a seeming contradiction in the nature of God attributed to Epicurus by later Christian scholars. Epicurus lived about three centuries before Jesus Christ, and any argument he made himself probably differed in significant ways.

It goes as follows:
1. If God is not able to prevent all evil, then he is not omnipotent.
2. If God is able to prevent all evil, but unwilling, then he is malevolent.
3. If God is both able to prevent all evil and willing, then why is there evil in the world?

The Epicurean paradox does not prove that God doesn't exist as decisively as some atheists might like. Although points one and two can be ruled out under the (Christian) assumptions that God is all-powerful and all-loving, point three is harder to dismiss: Perhaps what we see as evil is in fact part of some greater purpose we just don't know. Personally, I don't believe in the Epicurean paradox because I don't believe in poor logic--even if it has the right conclusion. If you want to decisively prove that God doesn't exist, I'd advise looking at the numerous contradictions in the Bible, the many failed prophecies, and the many other religions that believe in gods with just as much faith and evidence as the Christians believe in their God.
What are some counter arguments against the Epicurean paradox?
Here are some counter arguments against the Epicurean paradox:

The Problem of Evil: This counter argument states that the existence of evil in the world does not necessarily mean that God does not exist, as evil could be a result of human free will and the choice to do wrong. In this view, God allows evil to exist as part of a larger plan for good.

The Hiddenness of God: Some argue that God's existence may be hidden from us, and that the absence of clear evidence of his existence does not mean that he doesn't exist.

The existence of natural evil: This counter argument states that natural evil (e.g. earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.) are not necessarily the result of God's lack of power or will, but rather the result of a world that operates according to natural laws and processes.

The existence of moral evil: This counter argument states that moral evil (e.g. acts of cruelty, violence, and hate) are the result of human free will and choice, not the result of God's lack of power or will.

The possibility of unknown reasons: This counter argument states that there may be reasons for the existence of evil that are beyond our understanding, and that we cannot judge God's actions based on our limited knowledge.

These are just a few of the counter arguments against the Epicurean paradox. It's important to remember that arguments for and against the existence of God are complex and multifaceted, and require careful consideration and study. Ultimately, beliefs about God's existence and the nature of evil are deeply personal and subjective, and each person must come to their own conclusions based on their own experiences and beliefs.