Actually the problem of evil and the problem of free will are both troublesome issues for modern theistic belief. Free will, of course, can only be an illusion in a universe with an omnipotent and omniscient creator. Framing the 2 issues as if they somehow resolve each other is a piece of apologetic legerdemain that holds water like a sieve.
如果超自然的创造者精神在他造出地球(几天后又造出太阳?)之前就知道你会做出的每一个决定，并且有能力改变造物的任何细节——那么“意志”这个词对除他以外的任何实体都没有意义。(So if you are roasting in hell for eternity, or reincarnated into a life full of suffering as penalty - the responsibility can only lie with the only one who truly made a decision.)
But if we leave that aside, and pretend that will could have meaning, it is no answer at all to the POE. Do those who manage to live up to the expectations of the deity have free will? If so, then why cannot all be created with the moral strength, or whatever characteristic those acceptable people have, that allows them to make the right choice - despite being totally free to make the wrong one?
The only interesting phenomenon here is the bizarre contortions the human mind will perform to prop up the obvious nonsense of supernatural belief systems.

是的，亚伦，你提出了唯一有趣的问题?非常简洁。So,
DEFINING GOD
What or who is God?: Humans seek 1. An object for the great gift they feel of being able to give their love to someone or something, and 2. Confirmation of what they think is good and right. For these purposes, they refer to a consciousness outside of their own ? technically impossible to do, but they do it anyway. It is instinctive in the human. Prayer is one method.
The greatest evidence of the ?belief? being instinctive is the statistical fact that 99.9% of humans believe in some form of consciousness after death: heaven and hell, or reincarnation, or other forms of justice visited on the ?surviving? consciousness. If you don?t believe something like this, you are statistically not human.
What is ?existence,? as in the question ?Does God exist?? My consciousness is my only evidence of existence. We are told that God is a consciousness which exists outside my own. The only evidence I have of the existence of a consciousness outside my own is (and this is the crucial point): my decision that certain events selected by me (as well as those convincingly (for some purpose) proposed by someone else), are evidence of God?s consciousness.
选择这些证据并将属性归罪于上帝的唯一标准是什么?定义上帝吗?是证明我们(谁?我们?或者我们?可能是社会或个人的)有目的的信仰和实践。
争论上帝的属性，无论是合乎逻辑的还是不合逻辑的，都没有真正的意义;但这是很好的哲学乐趣。

If God is merely another name for infinitely everything, equitable Oneness, the Universe, who is to say it has free will, you and me? =

好吧——就是这样。
Mirugai - the few parts of your post that I found comprehensible, I disagree with.
Philosophical analysis of the attributes of gods is exactly equal in fun (and usefulness) to analysis of the attributes of Santa Claus.
Discussions on the the topic of what people believe about these alleged attributes of this alleged entity have the advantage of being discussions about
实际现象实际现象而非想象现象Those discussions can be useful, and fun - but also deadly serious, since people are much less likely to torture and
因为他们的圣诞老人信仰而互相残杀
Sayak - the "big picture" defense was already hamstrung in the original article; you have done a nice methodical breakdown further exposing its lack of
substance. I actually think Voltaire said all that needed to be said on the "best of all possible worlds" hypothesis. But believers just don't care. If
believers were willing to think rationally about their beliefs for a few nanoseconds, they would recognize it as the childish, primitive, superstitious
nonsense that it is.
But faith - in the sense of the word that applies only to religious belief, is nothing else but a technique to forcibly suppress critical thought about the
particular flavor of fairy tale favored by the believer's family, friends, culture, favored internet sites, whatever.
That is why the whole concept of "reasoned faith," or any attempt at rational discussion of the objects of faith, are such exercises in pointlessness.
MJA - if God is merely a name for x, then why use "God" instead of x, being that God, in common usage, carries a whole lot of meaning with it that clearly
你不打算信奉某种泛神论吗?
And - if free will and consciousness are phenomena that we observe only in the context of evolved biological systems - the only context in which the concepts
说得通——为什么我们会有任何冲动把它们投射到一块岩石、一个星系或一个宇宙(或一个公平的单一，不管那可能是什么)?
以严肃的现代哲学思想来探讨恶的问题是愚蠢的。
The simple and obvious "solution" to the "Problem" is to not place our faith (normal version of faith, not blind religious faith) in the absurd and plainly false belief system that spawns the imaginary paradox.

关于奥古斯丁的宏观观点，其含意是，如果全能的上帝可以随心所欲地操纵一切，那么他就可以创造一个善与恶并存的世界，无论它们看起来多么不相容。这样的解释在我看来总是太肤浅了，有点太方便了，几乎是一种逃避。另一方面，如果你从大的角度来看，你看到的，在我看来，是物理定律。大的观点不需要改变太多就能与达尔文的进化论相一致。但如果我们持这种怀疑的科学态度，那么认为同样的自然过程可以产生阿道夫·希特勒和帕特·布恩就有点夸张了。问题是，这两种观点哪一种更不可信?

A New Plan
I think it is time for a new divine plan, One that unites mankind equitably with not only himself but with all of Nature. One that removes the uncertain measures of science and the religious dogmas of faith or doubt that have so clouded our vision and led us so astray. One that leads us to real justice, not the grey area of fairness we see today. A new plan that equates the governed and the governors, One that declares a new independence led by our inalienable right of self-evidence and the strength or power of self-reliance, One that unites us All. It is time for a new plan, One based on the light of truth, built on the foundation of absolute, a plan that will takes All the Way, to the promised land of free at last.
The divine plan is equality, equality is freedom, the truth we've been fighting and searching for.
When All is equal All is One
Equal is the plan,
Truth is the Way.
=

.Dear Dave,
Search no further than Oneself. =

I am certain of three things and only three:
1. I am alive now, and have, therefore lived once. I'm thankful for this.
2. As with most living units, I will die, sooner or later. I accept this, thankfully.
3. All notions connected with item 2 and its finality, or extensivity, are speculative. And, boring.
真诚,纽曼。

K(NO)W GOD
问题是:为什么全能无所不知的上帝会允许[任何可怕的事情]发生??
Those who want to know who or what God is search the sacred books and sacred stories for evidence of Him. These portrayals are full of seeming contradictions about what God does, and his apparent goals for his followers. All searchers, regardless of the degree of their orthodoxy, sift through the portrayals for concrete guidance, and piece together the nature of their God from what they select. Un-fundamentalists faced with the contradictory evidence, simply make up their own God, usually based on what they ?want,? to the extent it conforms to what they view as ?good?? and ?bad?: moral outrage is man?s greatest pleasure, and piety displays are a close second.
So, we have the most orthodox believers debating and piecing together God from analysis of sacred texts and stories; and the less fundamentals completely making up their God. By the way, I don?t have any objection to either approach as ways of attempting to connect with ?Other Consciousness,? let?s call it.
What I do find faulty in the reasoning of God followers is: the expectation that God should or shouldn?t do something, or allow something?that God must follow some human rules of morality or behavior. Under the all knowing, all powerful view of God, it is not for believers to ascribe any explanation to God?s will; ?reason? and ?understanding? and ?meaning? and ?justice? are human constructs (mostly with nefarious purposes, in my view) which do not constrain God. If anything, whatever your God does or allows is more certain, more ?right? than any of these human constructs.
A better inquiry for philosophers is ?If God, what is He doing,? not ?why.? ?If God,? then what he does and ?allows? is the best evidence of His nature. The inquiry needs to be free of ?good? and ?bad.?

Ancient gods are often little more than a language to give events coherence. Monotheism is the fantasy of induction. That is why it is so protean. There is no logical induction, but there must be terms that warrant or give surety to reductive reasoning. It is therefore impossible to reason without intuiting induction, induction that is not warranted logically. Therefore the god offers itself as the abstracted term of the more concrete divinity the polytheists found rendering events coherent or at least able to be characterized. But the point is, if you think you have the indiuctive term sussed, why preach? Why insist on convincing the world? Why evangelize? What does the true believer care that others don't? What skin off god's nose? And if there were such an inductive term, reductive reasoning would be the matter of faith, not god. And so the whole matter is a vapid battle over a conviction in an intuition that has no warrant to it at all, and yet is prerequisite to reasoning.
圣经中的众神，他们中的许多，都围绕着对我们来说不值得的时间的承诺，只要我们相信它并遵循它的法则。当然，这里的谬误(如果我们能清楚地理解)是，时间就是价值。没有别的时间是有价值的。时间是陌生人的近处，它是通过我们而来的，我们愿意做任何事，想任何事，来阻止这个陌生人，使我们能够接受这样一个简单的说法:时间是不值得我们去做的，我们应该相信，对于归纳法的直觉，我们所需要的任何修正都是正确的，因为这种修正总是以证明归纳法的谬误而结束，从而证明时间的承诺永远不值得我们去遵守。

When Einstein says god doesn't throw dice he really only means science must subscribe only to determinate cause and explanation. But if reality is at rock bottom randomness, then who wins? You see, only if the one throwing the dice, the random event, effaces itself in the interest the rest of time space and matter has in finding itself more completed in the character of that otherwise inexplicable event than any determinist principle can render coherent is there anything we could rightly call "time". Time is the stranger, the rebel against the normative, that is most real defying the norm at that moment just as that norm seems closest to clinching its grip on it. That elusive quality no quantifier can bring to heel is the worth of time espousing all the inductive terms we assume are quantitatively prior to what is real. No god can supply such an explicative term.

A couple other matters of interest, though perhaps off topic. A recently released study that shows cyber-cars twice as accident-prone as human operators claims that all the accidents recorded were really the the fault of human driving. I am reminded of all the times Han Solo pleads "It's not my fault!" IT's a form of cyber road-rage, I suppose. But it goes to show that even artificial intelligence has its subjective side, and that its reasoning is flawed, even if its driving is not.
Also, it seems we have proof that the so called law of supply and demand is a hoax after all. One expert states that the Saudis believe that oil is going out of fashion and that the oil they do not pump today will not sell tomorrow. But, it seems, the renewable juggernaut is off the drawing-board and out of the barn. And that economists have to revise their fundamentals.

The subject of why the innocent must suffer needlessly is a good argument against religion and philosophies influenced by religion.

我相信它也给我们现代社会的世俗部分带来了一个问题，就像我们所做的那样。他似乎不接受任何不完美的东西，就像宗教人士谈论完美的上帝，以及邪恶、丑陋和苦难是多么不完美的维度一样。不适合相信全能。在我们世俗的现代社会中，对痛苦(身体上和情感上/精神上)是零容忍的;因此，我们发明了各种方法和药物，试图将它从我们的生活中消除。此外，世俗至少有某些美学大炮，它们几乎排除了任何不是由它们塑造的东西，所以我们真的努力避免面对像身体和精神疾病/缺陷这样的问题。世俗社会解决邪恶存在的方式似乎是通过某种方式接受它是OK的，只要它发生在你的个人/家庭泡沫。

听起来像是NIMBY and Realpolitik, on the moral front. There is no personal evil any more than there is a personal goodness. As Morse says to Lewis (quoting an author I do not remember and have not been able to identify by the use of any search engine): "There may not be a devil, but there's deviltry!" But the motive of giving the "absolute" or generality a name is to render it amenable to categorical determinism. But far from promoting relativism, the absence of that determinacy rescues us from the most relentless mode of relativism that determinacy is. The relation between the personal and the divine is the heart of all vexation in moral matters. What keeps us from ditching the appeal to divinity in hopes of differentiating good and evil is that we assume the alternative is that each is a determinate personal possession or attribute, when good and evil is a dynamic not of possession but of loss. The four great heresies of the Christian era have to do with the relation of the personal to the divine, and the most abiding resolution on offer is the idea of a hermetic seal between them that is only breach as a divine gift. The pernicious result, however, is that the gift and its receipt, too, get differentiated, each obviating the other. That is, the recipient of divine grace is the subjective determinacy of the inaccessible absolute. And so, there cannot be a personal good that is not, by fiat of its being received the gift, the voice of the idea of absolute good. And thence, of course, the arbiter of those who are not received it. But such possession is the best candidate for what evil is. It is not being so possessed of good that we can name the bad that brings home what good and evil is. It is only where the greatest discipline of the matter is that we do not know that we are most possessed of it. We are most possessed of good judgment where we are most disciplined in finding our certitude incomplete. It is the disciplined changing of the mind that is the life of morality, not the presumed determinacy of our judgment that always somehow falls short of that extreme rigor of finding certitude the unfinished project of our time. Or any time.