[unspun]

And there's no room whatsoever for a greater good that outweighs an even temporary toleration of evil by free moral agents? Not even when God expressed the terms and those who decide to be evil assume full (I sah "full") responsibility? That's "sophistry" (gotta love dismissals -- they often point out one caught up in one's theories).

So sheesh. That's hardly fair -- especially to someone so good, powerful... and so very authoritative to boot.

[general_re]

And there's no room whatsoever for a greater good that outweighs an even temporary toleration of evil by free moral agents?

Not in Mill's conception - an omnipotent God cannot be "forced" into choices or trade-offs, not even temporarily. Whatever that greater good is, an omnipotent God had the power to achieve it without tolerating evil, but for some reason chose not to.

That's hardly fair -- especially to someone so good, powerful... and so very authoritative to boot.

Perhaps. But then again, it didn't have to be that way if He is truly omnipotent ;)