Okay, I know things that are simple and brief are easily dismissed, even disappointing. Did you come to see more?
Check this out: you see a child playing at the playground, right? Let's say she's on the jungle-gym. There are swings present, and children playing tag. Now is it possible or impossible that this child also desires to play some tag and swing on the swings? We know the answer. We know! It is possible for a small child to desire more than one thing.
Well it is possible to introduce problems, using Epicurus' spiel. He dares not explicitly tell you what's needed.
Recall that we are maintaining God desires to prevent evil, God is capable of preventing evil, and God created evil. Now were one to posit a tiny god, far less than even a child in mental capacity, a god only capable of desiring one thing - well, then Epicurus' riddle works. Such a tiny, restricted god, desiring to prevent evil, and being utterly single minded and restricted, would be unable to also create evil.
Fortunately, such a God as Epicurus needs in order to succeed is an obvious absurdity. We can be confident Epicurus understood the necessity of his unstated premise, and omitted it in order to avoid provoking his audience to uncontrolled laughter. God - even according to the most inaccurate traditional understandings - God is greater than man rather than vastly inferior.
We should also be prepared for the scoffers to demand: "Why would God create evil if He desires to prevent evil?" The preparation is simple: prepare to stand your ground, and refuse to question God's decisions. It is not our place. At this point, you see, after all Epicurus' questions have been answered directly and honestly, the burden is on the hateful to PROVE the answers incompatible. We have no burden to play 1000 why's, or even one why. We have no burden to answer a single question more.
Now surely we know God desires to forgive, to demonstrate His grace and mercy, to grant free will, to make courage possible, and a whole slew of other things. But so long as one is dealing with the overtly disingenuous, why start down any path?
Until a man is seeking understanding, you won't force him to understand very much at all. Before answering further questions, it only makes sense to first have some reason to believe you are dealing with an honest seeker of knowledge and truth. He who insists there is some sort of burden on the man who has given honest answers to all Epicurus' questions is not honest. He is an intellectual, moral, and spiritual vandal.