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."
An additional attribute 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) does not address God fully, 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.