There's no such thing as a loving God

Of the question of evil:

If willing but not able then not omnipotent.. it follows because not being able is sufficient for not being omnipotent and being not able necessitates not being omnipotent. Unless you have some other definitional of omnipotence that doesn't mention ability?

If able but not willing then malevolent... it follows because not willing to stop evil but able to so is sufficient for malevolence and not willing but able necessitates malevolence. Well maybe I'll give you this one though and I'd personally say it necessitates indifference more than malevolence which is just as worst considering we're hypothesising a deity.

If able and willing then why evil. Don't tell me.. the big chap... he's got them mysterious ways about him. You can talk about free-will and not knowing the mind of God, but the fact of the matter is that evil is on the table and it wasn't us who set the game up.

If not able and not willing then why call him God. Why not call him Malcolm, Billy or any ordinary Tom, Dick or Harry? 

It a logical argument because they are not outlandish ridiculous premises (no one is saying God is made of green cheese for example) and the conclusion follows from the premises, i.e. they are valid. This doesn't mean that the conclusions are true but rather, given it's validity, questions may be asked of the premises as opposed to the logical form of the argument.