You're viewing part of a thread.
You missed a very, very important keyword there: "deserved."
Theologians miss a key point of rational debate where they don't provide proper definitions and make big assumptions that aren't great.
Who defines what the "correct" effect of an action is? Who defines what consequence is deserved by a choice? If God is the almighty being, he decides what is right and wrong. In Abrahamic tradition, God defines all of these arbitrary rules and expects humanity to obey them without question. Shit, God ordered Abraham himself to murder despite that supposedly being against the rules.
God is like a kid that holds a magnifying glass focused on an arbitrary point near the anthill. He set up the conditions for us to hurt ourselves according to his arbitrary rules. Why didn't he tell Satan to fuck off with the fruit? Why did he allow Satan to exist in the first place? If God created everything, then he is responsible for everything by our human logic. So God can fuck right off
Would you rather have free will or be a mindless slave to God?
So god cannot create a world with free will and without evil?
It won't be true free will, in that case, would it?
So god isnt all powerful is he? If he is omnipotent js change how reality works so that it can be true free will as well no bad in the world if hes omnipotent it should be easy for him
I thought it was common to believe that you had free will in paradise yet there be no evil. Which one is it you believe to be in paradise, free will or evil?
I think the official story is that people will eventually decide against evil, out of their own free will. That is how both things are achieved.