Until I what? Until I agree with you?
That's not how persuasive reasoning works. You don't just beg someone to keep reading your post over and over again until they 'get it'. Your presumption that the only reason people might disagree with you is obviously because they haven't understood what you wrote is...well, intellectually conceited. I understand your opinion/claim.
...If God creates all, is wise and is good, our nature should be different from what it is and moral evil would be rare.
That's your claim. But you saying that in
Cheerful Charlie Land something "should be different" or "rare" is simply your belief. I can gainsay your opinion and just assert that our nature is free to be whatever we freely choose.
Again God must make a choice, one of three possible choices. This is about following the logic of a morally perfect, wise, creator God to it's logical conclusion.
No. You have not demonstratied the conclusive, coercive logic which prevents an all powerful God from creating beings with free will. Why can't He do that? He certainly has nothing to fear from humans who choose to disobey Him.
What would be illogical is if God created beings with zero free will who were programmed to worship Him robotically
My logic is airtight. God creates us with a moral nature, which God must choose. That constrains our free will no matter what God chooses. Now God must know that, so if he chooses not to pick the choice of creating man with a good moral nature, moral evil must be the logical end result. Free will has been a problem for serious theologians for centuries. My formulation of the problem removes any wiggle room to blame our free will for evil, absolving God from any responsibility for existence of so much moral evil.
What I do here is grant the theists that we have free will, which is itself arguable, and then demonstrate that free will doesn't solve the problem of evil.
I can lay out the logic in the simplest, clearest way, but the problem is that often, people don't want to admit to facts and logic that undermine their beliefs and will not follow logic to it's inevitable conclusion.
The other horn of the dilemma is that God is said to be omnipotent, knowing the future in all its details. But if God creates all, God must choose a state of creation, from which all future events will unfold, strict determination. Of all the possible worlds God can actualize, he must choose one so all moral evil that exists in a given world is cause by God's choice. Free will is impossible. Compatibilism as a theological way out is dead.
Or, God is outside of time and all is at once, past and future is just an illusion. So God creates all at once, all that is. Then God creates all acts of moral evil.
No matter how we slice it and dice it, God as a concept and moral evil of mankind simply doesn't logically make sense. Theologians have spent centuries try to solve the problem but have failed. And for centuries have failed to take things to their logical conclusion.
I am sorry, but my mind works in a fashion that takes these problems, lays them out to get to the heart of theology's claims and follows it out to the logical end. The problem of God and human immorality simply cannot be reconciled. God's commanding of genocides, massacres and cruelty cannot be reconciled with Bible claims of God's goodness, mercy, compassion, justice and fairness.
God is not a logically possible theory. For many years, I have read the works of sophisticated (and not so sophisticated) theologians to see if anybody can explain all of this away, and no, they can't.
