The article is devoted to revealing the essence of good and evil in the situation of dialogue between God and man according to M.Buber's philosophical worldview. It is noted that the measurement of the world from the position of dualism has found its way in the philosophy of M.Buber through the correlation of communication in the prism of the subject-object contradiction «I – You», «I – It», where I – is an attempt to stick out a man himself a permanent subject over the objects, and the violation of dialogue with God leads to thinking about God from theodicea to atheism. This article uses primary source research directly the works of the philosopher, as well as achievements of other researchers, such as T.Lyncea, A.Outn, A.Ogurtsov, I.Bergolak. The main directions of the article are: analysis of the dialogue structure of the world according to the philosophy of M.Buber; definition of the role of Faith in the system of dialogue between God and man; development of the ontology model of good and evil in the philosophy of M.Buber. In the philosophy of M.Buber distinguishes three types of dialogue, which are passed through the concept of» should «and the concept of» is», that is, a person conducts a dialogue from the position of his own self-acceptance, respectively, as he believes it is worth entering into a dialogue with what is understood as what is relevant to the dialogue. Dialogue with God, man leads from a position of determining who God is in this dialogue, and consequently makes certain claims regarding the rules of communication. In such a dialogue, faith is lost as trust and faith as faith of unsubstantiated. The article States that the ontological model of the world from a position of Christian theodicy is not a dialogue, built by combining two faiths. M.Buber compares two models of communication with God – early Christians and Jews and determines that it was not necessary for early Jews to justify God regarding the creation of evil. This means that God is the Creator and the original source of both good and evil, but only through man evil is separated from good, and acquires its own essence.
2. Berhulyak I. Podviynistʹ svitiv u filosofiyi Hryhoriya Skovorody i Martina Bubera // Universytet•sʹki naukovi zapysky: Seriya «Filosofiya». – 2012. – Vyp. 10. – S. 154–164.
3. Buber M. Dva obraza very. – M.: AST, 1999. – 592 s.
4. Buber M. Dyaloh // Dva obraza very. – M.: AST, 1999. – S. 122–161.
5. Buber M. Obrazy dobra y zla // Dva obraza very. – M.: AST, 1999. – S. 162–201.
6. Buber M. Problema cheloveka // Dva obraza very. – M.: AST, 1999. – S. 202–300.
7. Buber M. YA y Ty // Dva obraza very. – M.: AST, 1999. – S. 24–121.
8. Ogurtsov A.P., Platonov V.V. Ekzistentsial'no-dialogicheskaya traditsiya: M.Buber // Obraztsy obrazovaniya. Zapadnaya filosofiya obrazovaniya. KHKH vek. – SPb.: RKHGI, 2004. – S. 285–318.
9. Pomerants G.S. Vstrechi s Buberom // Dva obraza very. – M.: AST, 1999. – S. 5–23.
10. Sovremennyy filosofskiy slovar' // Pod red. V.Ye.Kemerova; 2-ye izd, ispr. i dop. – London, Frankfurt-na-Mayne, Parizh, Lyuksemburg, Moskva, Minsk: PANPRINT, 1998. – 1064 s.