Why does God permit evil????

With that in mind every inanimate object is potentially evil. Champagne corks kill nine people a year on average, beware the curse of the evil champers corks.

We face a dilemma: either attribute the atrocities of this world to God's failing to build a good world, or assume that our vision is limited.

In first case we are simply doomed, and it is the worst personal tragedy which can ever happen, because it doesn't matter are we right or wrong, nothing is going to be fixed.

This approach is also absurd, because it implies that we are perfect while our Creator is not.

Taking the second alternative seems to be the solution for a religious skeptic. And this solution can be practically tested (Follow king Solomon's example). Keep in mind that a religious skeptic who has resolved the problem of evil is no longer a skeptic .

Sure. Extrinsically evil, but not intrinsically. But, of course, earthquakes have more evil effects than do champagne corks. But not all evil is intentional evil. Disease is an evil, but there is no intention. Evils are just very bad occurrences that cause pain or suffering. Something can be an evil without its being evil. Perhaps that is the distinction that is bothering you.

The question for me is that evil is an intent to do harm. It has to be aware of its intentions. If you like, extrinsically, but that is a contradiction in terms.

Discussions of the problem of evil frequently divide evil into moral evil (that caused by human choice and free will) and natural evil (that caused by nature and natural events earthquakes, floods, famine, pestilence, disease, etc). If the conception of the divine is one of omnipotence (all the power belongs to god) and creation ex nihilo (the world was created by god according to his exact plan and specifications) then both types of evil "belong to god" so to speak.

If one thinks free will is non existent or an illusion then it would seem moral evil would be an illusion also or that both types of evil are equivalent and "natural". In any event mechanistic determinism and divine omnipotence are roughly equivalent in their implications for meaningful "free will" and for "moral evil." Man is relieved of true responsiblity by "nature" on the one hand and by "god" on the other. It turns out I reject both.

By "belong to God" I suppose you mean, "are caused by God". If you mean by "free will is an illusion" that people do not have intentions, then I guess you are right, since in that case, no one intends to do evil. But there is no reason in the world to think that people do not have intentions. I certainly intended to write this reply, and you, if you reply, intend to write the reply. So, it is clearly false that people do not have intentions. It is true, of course, that intentions have causes of some kind, but the fact that they have causes does not mean that they do not exist. In fact, if they have causes then they must exists in order to have causes.

.
Thus moral evil exists but it is not part of the "divine will or divine plan".

That is true, but the question is whether the existence of evil can be reconciled with God's goodness and power.

False Dilemma: both choices entail a belief in God. How about a case where there is no JCI God, and that atrocities committed are subject to moral evaluation, without appealing to a divine being.

Well, intentional evil of course is-intentional. That is sometimes also called "moral evil". But non-intentional evil of course is-unintentional sometimes called non-moral evil). Why is extrinsic evil a contradiction in terms. It means only that the effects are evil, but not necessarily the thing itself. Of course, something can be both intrinsically and extrinsically evil. For example, pain is both. In itself, since it hurts, and extrinsically because of its effect (expense, annoyance to others, and so forth).

Im sorry but how you can make an accident an act of evil is beyond my comprehension. When you have an act of evil it implies an intention to do harm.. My toe has just stubbed itself on the table leg..What is evil about this, my toe for its stupidity, the table for not getting out of the way or your concept?

In discussing the problem of evil there are generally two aspects both of which involve suffering and pain.
moral evil which results from human free will, choice and action
and
natural evil which results from natural events famine, floods, pestilence, earthquakes etc.

Your notion of "evil" is confined to moral evil. It is really a matter of agreeing on the definition of "evil"

Yes, it alll hinges in the definition.
For instance I confine "evil" to a purely moral state.
Those events you mentioned - famines, floods, pestilence, earthquakes, I do not consider evil. They may be a lot of things, teribble, awful, tragic.
But evil is not an adjective I'd apply to them.

I am afraid we ran over misunderstanding here. The subject of this thread reads "Why does God permit evil????". Therefore, God's existence is a basic assumption. The question is not whether he exists or not, but why he permits evil. Otherwise, the discussion is meaningless. The dilemma is definitely true if the assumption is honored. I skip the other points of your message as they all are affected by this false false dilemma.

I am afraid we ran over misunderstanding here. The subject of this thread reads "Why does God permit evil????". Therefore, God's existence is a basic assumption. The question is not whether he exists or not, but why he permits evil. Otherwise, the discussion is meaningless. The dilemma is definitely true if the assumption is honored. I skip the other points of your message as they all are affected by this false false dilemma.

Yes. The question assumes that God exists. Clearly, without that assumption, the question makes no sense.

and what does the "reality of evil" say to you about "the nature of god" especially about the question of divine goodness and divine power?

That there is a problem about reconciling the three. But that doesn't mean they cannot be reconciled.
One reconciliation attempt is Leibniz's Theodicy which is that all evils are logically necessary evils. I have explained this view earlier.

What do you think of the notion of "divine omnipotence is a theological mistake" as a solution?

Not much, since it is not a solution. It denies the problem. William James and others have offered the view that "God needs out help". But this, of course, is merely speculation. The problem of evil is the problem of reconciling God's power and goodness with evil. I suppose one can also deny Gods' goodness, or deny the existence of evil. But those would not be solutions either.