I have enjoyed your fasscinating and superb dialogue here. Please forgive this interjection, but I wonder what made J.S. Mill think that taking away evil in the world has anything to do with God's power? Power can only do what power can do. I might as well ask our dear general to make a square circle, as to ask how a Good God if he is omnipotent, permit evil in the world.
Cordially,
To me, it seems to boil down to something as simple as:
1. God not being the one responstible for evil, though he was prescient of it, for only the practitioners are responsible for evil, as morality tells us.
2. God granting only good and perfect gifts, which do not loose value, though they may change in function.
3. ....and yes: God developed a greater good. I don't see that I need to 'show' that the greater good is compensatory for the evil. There is no comparison between good (what is of God) and evil (what is disagreement and disobedience with God) and again, God is not responsible for the disagreement or disobedience with him. The "greater" is simply greater than had God never created beings who could share in his loving relationship.
A rather limited sort of omnipotence. Perhaps you're on to something, though, and God is ultimately self-defining. Thus, it is a mistake to try to attach any sort of label at all to God, whether that label be "omnipotent" or "perfectly good" or whatever - IOW, "perfect is as perfect does", which is not likely to be comforting to all those who think they've found the "right" little box to fit God into. And there's certainly no shortage of folks like that, in my experience ;)
Great question, Diamond. I figure I come up with the same answer that you do. For it seems to me that to try to make a "science" of God is pretty much the same thing as trying to square the circle. Either is an exercise in futility.
Diamond, it's wonderful to see you. You've been missed....