Excellent discussion from what I've read so far, I'm sorry that I haven't kept up with it, I'll try to read back all the way through.
I found the different perspective in two of your responses interesting:
1. God does good things, Satan does bad things.
My response - So Satan caused the tsunami and god did nothing. That makes god look weak as well as wicked.
...
5. Free will. Here he manged to link it to 9/11?
My response - I am deliberately not talking about human actions. I am only interested in "natural evil". If god had prevented the tsunami no free will would have been involved.
If the pastor's suggestion in theodicy 1 was correct (satan caused the tsunami) then god would still have been intervening in free will (satan's free will) if he stopped it. As such you could have used the same argument for theodicy 5 as for theodicy 1, right? God's failure to stop 9/11 makes 'god look weak as well as wicked'? I was curious if there was a reason you avoided that?
I think 'open theism' is the best attempt I've seen at dealing with the problem of evil. I'm not sure if that perspective has been raised on here yet (I feel bad engaging on a thread I haven't fully read )