This appears not to be a question of someone who is looking for God, but of someone who is looking toward God from an egocentric point of view (which is antithetical to the way we may communicate with God).
Not necessarily. I think that Mill is trying to come to an understanding of the nature of God by examining His handiwork - essentially, he's looking at the creation, and trying to come to understand what sort of creator would create this thing. And I think he would probably find the answers you suggest to be wanting, but let's see...
Who's asking this?: But God knew this would happen; why wouldn't he just create those people who would obey? Giving God the benefit of the doubt, some of the answers could be:
1. God doesn't cheat and that would be cheating.
2. That wouldn't really be a holistic relationship between God and creation, especially when creation is the entire means of God sharing his loving nature with free beings.
3. None of us would choose to be fully obedient (Shoot, bunches of angels even messed up.)
This is perhaps the easiest to address, since Mill himself considered exactly this sort of response when he said "They have exhausted the resources of sophistry to make it appear that all the suffering in the world exists to prevent greater---that misery exists, for fear lest there should be misery: a thesis which if ever so well maintained, could only avail to explain and justify the works of limited beings, compelled to labour under conditions independent of their own will; but can have no application to a Creator assumed to be omnipotent, who, if he bends to a supposed necessity, himself makes the necessity which he bends to." (my emphasis).
What Mill is essentially saying is that it doesn't make sense to call the creation of inherently good and virtuous and obedient men "cheating", since it's only "cheating" because God Himself made it that way! In other words, a God who made such a rule must have had the ability to not make that rule if He were truly omnipotent - when you get to make all the rules, something is only "cheating" if you make it that way. And thus He, were He truly omnipotent, must have easily been able to make good and virtuous men, but for some reason chose not to. So saying that such a thing would be "cheating" doesn't rescue an omnipotent God from the responsibility for creating wickedness - it's only "cheating" because He wanted it that way.
And the same sort of rationale applies to the other two points as well. If such a relationship isn't really a "holistic" relationship with God, that can only be because an omnipotent God declined to make it a holistic relationship with Him - if He is omnipotent, He could have just as easily chosen to allow that sort of relationship to be holistic, and yet he chose not to. If none of us would choose to be fully obedient, then that's because an omnipotent God must have wanted us to choose disobedience, since an omnipotent God has the power to make us obedient, and yet chose not to. And of course He must have wanted all these things - there are no unintended consequences for an omniscient being, who knows in advance every single consequence of His every single act.
1. God expressed his morality to us, but that didn't make us good.
IOW, as Mill posits, He chose not to make us good - He, being omnipotent, must have had the power to do so, and being omniscient, knew that His expressions of morality would fail to make us good. What other conclusion can we reach but that things are the way they are because that's exactly how God wanted them, if he is truly omnipotent?
4. God found a way (through someone of David's lineage as well as his own) to fulfill God's law and its consequences of disagreeing, disobeying man's alienation from him. It cost. It also demonstrated that God empathized with every bit of our suffering the consequences of our evil, and in ways that are just about as fathomless as he is, himself.
But Mill would object that you are positing a God that is merely "empathizing" with the consequences of evil that He is ultimately responsible for in the first place! I suspect Mill might become a bit exasperated at this point, and suggest that mere sympathy for the helpless victims of evils that you created and are responsible for is hardly adequate redress, and not the hallmark of a perfectly good being - why would a perfectly good being permit evil and suffering in the first place, especially if we are to believe that He is omnipotent, and thus has it easily within His power to eliminate it, or to not create it at all? Is that really what we mean when we think of "perfectly good" - a being who freely and willfully chooses to cause evil to occur? Or is it possible, Mill asks, that He really is perfectly good, but is of limited power, and so is thus not responsible for the existence of evil?
Consider an analogy for a moment, related to the doctrine of sins of omission. We can both, I think, agree that it would not be accurate to call a person who has the power to stop some evil from taking place, and yet does not, as being "good", especially if that evil can be stopped at little or no risk to oneself. If you're walking down the street some afternoon, and you see a toddler playing in the street, but you choose to walk on past despite the fact that you could easily have removed the child from such a dangerous position, then I think we would both agree that you bear some responsibility if that child should be struck and killed later on - by your conscious and willful failure to act, you have permitted a bad thing to occur. And we call this a sin, as per James 4:17 - "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin," - and sins are posited to be objectively evil acts. So what are we to make of a being who consciously and willfully permits all the evils in the world to occur, especially when He could prevent them all with infinite ease? Does it make any sense at all to call such a being "perfectly good"?
Looks like we're talking about a fairly simple dispute with God, so I've plucked this sentence out. I'll give my immediate answer, then there could be more to post later.
Goodness is merely an expression of what God is. That's all. It isn't "The Force," with which he could have made us. Remember? Everything that we call true life is only allowed to be called life bacause it exists in perfect relation to God, sharing his nature (A = A) but his nature continues to be his. (Hence, "treasures in earthen vessles" being "Christ in me, the hope of glory," and "share in his glory," but "I will not give my glory to another, or my praise to idols.") Othewise it is either destroyed, or "growns" in an existence of suffering. Further suffering is simply detachment from God. The great evil that man suffers and inflicts upon man is only a "momentary suffering" that is a part of the much greater suffering of existence being separated from God (spiritually dead).
Back toward the center of the problem, instead of making man subsets of himself (Godlets) he chose to make us distinct beings and to do so, he chose to make us free spirits. (The inadequacy of creating automatons has been touched upon recently.) To put it another way, Mills wants Pinochio and Pinochio is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. One is either God or distinct from God. The choice is either Godlets (God encapsulated), automotons (lifeless), or real live boys (and girls).
He chose to make us in his image though, and (BTW, Ayn Rand might have appreciated this) he made us free morally and to be so, the burden of responsibility for our obedience is upon us, not him.
(The more I consider this, the more I'm compelled to think that my #3 point of the list that I know irked Mr. Mills rings true. All not only have fallen short of the glory (the stuff) of God, but all would have, no matter who ate the fruit and who didn't.)
There is no sin of ommission here, because like a good father, God warned A&E of what would happened and let them grow up. There is not limiting of God's power, because it was a matter of God being God-with-integrity, who again, simply doesn't, won't cheat or lie (the creation of beings that aren't distinct, though he would call them distinct). I say that not allowing himself to be immoral doesn't make him 'unomnipotent.' But it does show him in fact, to be both all good and all powerful. It's only the concotion of a 'depraved' mind to say that God choosing to act with the integrity of goodness makes him less powerful. Come to think of it, that may have been one of Lucifer's points.
Since God is the master of what his nature is, of course, I could have said, "accept it in faith that God is both all good and all powerful," and of course that's how I conclude. I'm sure that elements of the further answer are in the aforementioned statement, "I will not give my glory to another," though and here is that point: That would be lessening himself. That woudld be ceasinng to be omnipotent (and I wouldn't be surprised if that would also be ceasing to have integrity and therefore ceasing to be good, which of course wouldn't happen because he is -very willfully- I AM THAT I AM).
So, maybe the Pinocchio that Mills wanted I suppose would have been a being living on God's glory sustaining his goodness, but it still wouldn't make him a real live boy. He wouldn't be a distinct spirit so it wouldn't be a fully formed being (maybe it would be a little like an animal, but I think that is different). But I digress. It's an idea that wouldn't get off the drawing board.
Feel free to tell me that it still doesn't satisfy the former Mr. Mills or whomever else. Also, I'll look to see if there are other issues that don't just boil down to this. I's guess that Mills might still complain about something.... maybe that God shouldn't have had the right to make beings of free will in the first place. I guess you mentioned that. Too bad. Though he knew what would happen, it's not his fault, it is only the sustained fault of the willful beings that don't accept God by their acts (the fallen angels made that choice in the first place, humans make that choice by whether or not they choose regeneration). To say that sin is God's fault is simply a denial of moral responsibility. And again, the sin of ommission doesn't charge to God either because all are warned. Now I have to avoid the sin of omitting the mowing of my lawn. Dangerous as it is, I won't even proof read so I'm sure there are redundancies, etc.
"They have exhausted the resources of sophistry to make it appear that all the suffering in the world exists to prevent greater---that misery exists, for fear lest there should be misery: a thesis which if ever so well maintained, could only avail to explain and justify the works of limited beings, compelled to labour under conditions independent of their own will; but can have no application to a Creator assumed to be omnipotent, who, if he bends to a supposed necessity, himself makes the necessity which he bends to."
...why would a perfectly good being permit evil and suffering in the first place, especially if we are to believe that He is omnipotent, and thus has it easily within His power to eliminate it, or to not create it at all?
At least as an aside, I think Mr. Mills undersells the treasure of being a distinct being -- a free spirit, despite suffering. Who would trade it in? I don't think he would. I sure wouldn't. What's more (much... much... more): God being all good will see to it that each has the opportunity to be reconciled with God. Again, the 'better question' (the utilitarian question, surely) that I mentioned is, "God being all good, how is (was) evil reconciled with (by) his power?" Wow, what a wonder to be a distinct, self-directed person adopted to be God's son in Christ and to know surpassing love.
Looking at this again in a less hurried time and with a newly mown lawn (and lawn mowing being wonderful for meditation) I think I found answers to this paradox that satisfy me, at least, even if they were less than well expressed.
God's goodness is merely a reflection of who He is and of course all he creates.... God will not give his glory (nature, substance) to another, which would leave him less than omnipotent and less than complete (completely satisfactory, with complete integrity, i.e., completely good) and which perhaps would risk evil greater than Lucifer's (perhaps this would be a valid injustice for Mr. Mill).... But, God shares his glory with those who are in full relationship with him.... Real life as a person is relation to God as a distinct being.... Fully formed and fully informed beings inevitably are morally responsible for themselves (apt to include "light, momentary" discipline by an intently caring authority).... Knowing our failing, God provided us reconciliation as a new, inextricably God-fused spirit by our agreement to relinquish our separation and receive this relationship (by covenant)* -- the Father and the Father's Word knowing what they'd have to do as he created us and expressed as early as Genesis 3:15... Being the testifying first fruits, having known sin/evil and now knowing God... I think it's kind of like Hank's air flight phenomenon. It really happened.
The real necessity is for us to be in relation to God, and of course by the way he really has happened to provide.
_________________________________________________
*If we hadn't sinned and suffered with the knowledge of good and evil, could we have had the opportunity for such an agreement for this so deeply and essentially communing relationship with God? And would we have really known what it meant?