Geoff at New Cool Thang discusses the problem of evil, linking back to the original discussion here a couple of months ago.

Rather than post a lengthy comment there, here's some continuing thoughts:

Here's a good summary of the basic "problem of evil" as expressed by Geoff:

Example A1

Mike and Joe are walking through the jungle. Joe falls in some quicksand and slowly starts to sink. Mike sees all this happening, has power to save Joe, and even hears Joe plead for assistance. But Mike chooses to ignore Joe and lets him die.

- We would say Mike is wicked/immoral for refusing to lift a finger to help Joe.

Example A2

Joe is walking through the jungle. Joe falls in some quicksand and slowly starts to sink. God sees all this happening, has power to save Joe, and even hears Joe plead for assistance. But God chooses to ignore Joe and lets him die.

- Why shouldn’t we also say God is wicked/immoral for refusing to lift a finger to help Joe (as we don’t hesitate to do with Mike)?

Without getting into the questions of free agency and eternal perspective brought up by the original post, let's start by assuming the opposite:  Let's assume God saving Joe is, in fact, the appropriate and 'moral' choice (since He has the power to do so) just as Mike saving Joe would have been.

And let's assume that this is now what happens:  every time Joe falls into the quicksand (with or without Mike present) the invisible hand of God reaches down and pulls him out--the appropriate 'moral' action according to our philosophy.

How does this change both Joe's and Mike's behavior, in both the present and the future?

First things first, you can certainly bet Mike will NEVER lift a finger to help Joe ever again.  Why should he?  He knows that Joe already has an omnipotent guardian angel that is there to help Joe out of trouble.   There's no reason for Mike to spend any effort or thought towards caring for Joe or anyone, because God already has the power (and, under our thought experiment, the responsibility) for removing any obstacles from Joe's present and future happiness.  Even--as in this case--if Mike had the capability of performing the same action that would save Joe's life despite not being God, why would he do so, if Mike knows that God is going to do so whether he does or not?  Mike knows the unseen 'moral' hand of God will help Joe out of any danger, and he needn't bother with any thought for anyone other than himself.

From Joe's perspective, if he knows that the hand of God will save him from imminent danger, what will he do differently?  Before, he might have thought twice before wandering in areas where there was potential danger of quicksand.  Now, why would he care?  He can go wandering in high-quicksand areas every day without a second thought as he knows that God--being 'moral'--will not let him die.  Why shouldn't Joe participate in more 'risky' behavior--driving 120 mph down the highway, for example--when he knows that the 'moral' hand of God will, in the end, remove any risk to himself or others?

We can see that even if in the beginning God's plan was simply to save those of His children where unfortunate circumstances would have resulted in tragedy, sooner or later the knowledge of His plan changes behavior.

Ideally, He saves Joe when he needs to be saved and Joe continues to lead a happy life, but doesn't need to stretch out His hand otherwise.  Now, He finds that (a) Joe puts himself in more positions where divine intervention is necessary than before--taking more risks since the 'danger' has been removed, and (b) even in situations where other people have the ability to save Joe from danger, they don't, of course, because they know that God will be intervening in the end, and they have no need to worry themselves.  Basically, God finds He has to 'save' Joe (and others) with greater and greater frequency due to this 'moral' policy.  Is this really what God wants?

[Comparing to a real-world scenario: suppose the government decreed a new welfare policy where those who did not have jobs would receive the equivalent of a $50,000 annual income in welfare benefits.  This is 'moral' in that it (in theory) prevents poor people without jobs from starving without (tax issues aside) hurting anyone with a job that can support themselves.  Except...what happens when many of those who originally had jobs decide to leave, since they know that they can get a $50,000 income from the government without working.   If your job paid the same or less as the government benefit, then the choice is a no-brainer, but even if your previous job paid more, you might still theorize that the drop in income is worth not having to work--you can make a smaller budget and still have a lot more free time.   Wouldn't you surmise the end result of a $50,000 'moral' welfare policy would be a sharp increase of people receiving welfare in the end? (This is, in fact, one consequence of welfare policies now...)]

We have to ask a fundamental question:  what's the purpose of life? 

If we define the purpose of mortal existence is to 'not die', whether by disease or accident, then clearly the only moral choice would be for God to save Joe from the quicksand in all instances.

But what if the purpose of mortality is NOT just to 'not die' (or be assaulted, or raped, or starve, etc...) but rather something higher.  Suppose God's WANTS Joe to be free to make choices without a divine 'safety net' altering his philosophy towards risk.  Suppose God WANTS Mike to help Joe when he has the chance, without Mike throwing off any and all responsibility to care for others due to the existence of that same 'safety net'.  What if the possibility of Joe dying is not a big enough 'tragedy' from an eternal perspective to abandon those goals?

As another example, suppose you have an apartment with three roommates.  One of them does the washing of the dishes every day after every meal, and two of them do not.  Suppose the one that does is tired of his roommates not helping out, so he decides to stop washing dishes for a while.   Eventually, dirty dishes pile up in the sink, and the other two roommates find they no longer have any clean dishes to eat with.

If we define the ideal goal of apartment living as "never have unclean dishes", then the first roommate has a 'moral obligation' to clean the dishes whether or not the other two help out, since he has the power to do so, and the recognition that 'clean dishes > dirty dishes'.   Having dirty dishes in the sink is the 'tragedy' in apartment life, and morally, roommate #1 has the responsibility to do everything he can to avoid it.

If we define the ideal goal of apartment living, however, as "helping these three roommates develop ideal characteristics that will benefit them both now and in future life after college", then perspectives change.  The first roommate may decide that the 'tragedy' of having unclean dishes for a little while is worth suffering through in order to obtain the higher goal--namely encourage his roommates to help out.  Then, they can obtain the true ideal goal, where everyone does their part, and there aren't any dirty dishes.

By choosing not to 'intervene', roommate #1 creates a situation that encourages his roommates to take responsibility for cleaning dishes themselves (although they are still free to choose not to do so).   Under the original condition, they had a disincentive to clean dishes, because they knew that their roommate would be taking care of it in the end, and why bother getting off the couch?

Likewise, if God wants Mike to care about Joe (or Joe to care about his own well-being), God *can't* just scoop Joe out of the quicksand every time he falls, because that completely undercuts his true goal in human development.  But, of course, in order to do that, there has to be the real possibility that Joe dies in the quicksand.

The key question in the "problem of evil" is whether death is truly a 'tragedy' in God's eyes.  Sure, God doesn't *want* us to die early, or lead lives of suffering, but like those dirty dishes, if that is a necessary condition to encourage us to take care of problems ourselves instead of waiting for divine hands to come down and clean up, then perhaps it is worth it in God's eyes...