Replies

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

This of course, assumes control, not allowance of moral self-control by free beings. Isn't the former inherently "good?" Be careful now, the answer to that question will decide whether or not one is a classic libertarian! Sounds like Mills would be fit for DU.

So I do not think it is at all fallacious to say that the creation of free moral agents is not good. And, if God chooses to withdraw some of his control, in order to do so, that is the act of one yet omnipotent.

To take up from where the previous post left off, let me add the element I brought up earlier and make it "fair" to God, while it becomes "unfair" to Mills based on his point of view which I still assert as egocentric:

An additional attributed of God, according to Christians is holiness (otherness, distinct, special, above and beyond, set apart). This simply indicates that man's understanding (including his premeses and logic) while God maintains integrity as he applies himself within the scope of our domain, and our logic where perfect, is a subset of God's reason. Our logic does not grasp God, who is ultimately authoritative and beyond our comprehension.

Is this begging the question? It is not begging the question to say that it is a tenet/axiom (revelation) of Christians, that God is holy any more than to say he is all good or omnipotent. It is not begging the question any more than it is begging the question for Mills to declare his premise that he can understand all the logic of God and all the factors at work in it.

This holiness element must also apply in any "equation" about God, in order to convey Christian belief, which remains valid as such.

(But I also hold to the justifications in my previous post, too. Freedom is good. Reduced control is yet omnipotent. God is not responsible for the sin and suffering of free moral agents.)

God is not responsible for what he justly declares the responsibility of others. He is only responsible for how this may effect those outside of this covenental relationship. Mills is responsible for his own evil and how he responds to God. God is not responsible to Job's or Mills' seneses of injustice.

I could go on and on abou tthe "greater good."