Calvinism and Arminianism remix

You're missing the entire point. If god is evil, he can't be all loving. He can't be both careless and the Christian god.

Because we chose it. He only allowed it to give us a choice. You seem intent on suing Him for the consequences of what we chose.

This notion alone doesn't alter the problem. If life-after-death is just as messed up as this one, then the problem of an "all-powerful-God" allowing evil to exist still persists. If life-after-death does not include evil (or is "much better") then the question arises "why have this pre-death-life at all?" Then it isn't evil.
We can call it "the ending of an innocent life so that another life may continue on" if you want.And then the problem remains.Why not have it such that "life may continue on" without the ending of other innocent life?
If God is not powerful enough to alter such a thing... this explains why it must be.
If God is powerful enough... the question remains. That's basically the same question.
Is this bigger picture for a good-enough reason? If so... what is that reason?
Is this bigger picture for some terrible reason? If so... what is that reason?
And, of course, what if God doesn't see a bigger picture at all and you're just making that up? Then God isn't all-powerful enough to find another way.
This is a perfectly acceptable answer.
If God is restricted in such a way that the world cannot be better... then God is not all-powerful.
If God is not all-powerful, then clearly this is the 'best He can do.'
If God is not all-powerful, what else can He not do?Again, the issue only arises if we are talking about a God that is all-powerful.If God is all-powerful, how can He possibly be restricted by being forced to do it this way? Then it is right.What if it isn't, though?
What if God's test is to see who has enough self-confidence to say "Hey! This shit isn't right! Things could be better!" And then those who show they can pick out right vs. wrong regardless of worldly or even seemingly-heavenly peer pressure are chosen to move onto the next world and act as God's heralds? Because, obviously, He can trust them to figure things out without His constant reassurance.We can play the 'what if' game all night long for other topics, if you'd like.
But here, the question is "if God is all powerful, why isn't the world better?"
Your statement is interesting in itself, but has nothing to do with the current question. Do you think it's possible to judge a Creator without arrogance?
In the sense that "this is how I judge the Creator based on the information available to me during my life and experiences, I could be wrong... but without further information this is how it looks to me."If not, I judge your opinion to be... immature. I don't think it matters if we're charged to judge God or not.
I think it's human nature to judge things. We judge things (other people, situations...) constantly.
There's nothing wrong with judging... Judging is how we make decisions. What is 'weighing options' if not "judging?"
There's only something wrong if you judge and don't remember that it's possible to be wrong. Do you think it's possible to judge God while at the same time not oppose God?I do.

I don't believe we have enough information with which to judge Him and/or declaring what He, in fact, is or is not.

Obviously not true. The whole Bible is the story of people hearing God. The only change after The Apple was that they no longer believed everything He said blindly. He did, after all, lie to them. As grownups, they had to think for themselves. All part of growing up; Daddy doesn't change your diapers any more. The Bible doesn't say any such thing. Because it isn't the "basic theology" that you think it is. You should read the Bible instead of just commentaries. God said it: they became more like Him. Maybe you should consider the possibility that your ideas of "the Fall" are wrong. After all, you are directly contradicting God.

Works for me! Lets run with that.... Yes. Perhaps some think it a sin to question Him, but I believe He not only allows it but encourages it.

We've been through this before. If He plants landmines in his front yard along with a "Keep Off the Grass" sign, HE IS RESPONSIBLE for the consequences. Our legal system understands that. Why don't you?

What???I can't begin to understand this misunderstanding.If you killed a person either knowingly or by neglect, you would be culpable.
If god kills a person either knowingly or by neglect, why is he not culpable?God kills or allows to be killed trillions of organisms, including the entire planet at least once. He also set up this system such that everything competes for their lives by taking others. How can there possibly not be enough information for you to decide that this is in your face wrong? What could be clearer?

You do understand that people are different, right?Some are stronger, some are weaker.
Some are smarter, some are not-as-smart.
Some are tall, some are short.
Some are very empathetic, some are not.
Some are very moral, some are not.What makes you think that "one world" for all the people we see everyday, is adequate or necessary for everyone?The issue isn't whether or not we're getting any better.The issue is whether or not this is the best method for an 'all-powerful God' to do, well, anything.With all the differences of people that we can all see all around us... one world isn't going to cut it for any single test to apply evenly to "all people." The notion is laughable. Laughable for an 'all-powerful God' anyway.

Only selected people whom God chose as prophets, and that is in fact evidence for what I said since the vast majority did not and do not hear God as Adam and Eve did before they disobeyed. He didn't lie to them, they DID die as a result of their disobedience. And everything I said about how they were now subject to suffering that hadn't existed before is true.They went from a paradise to a world full of distress, disease and death. What a jaundiced picture of "growing up" you have. '
Sure it does: In respect of knowing good and evil. But otherwise it was the beginning of all the suffering in the world for man and beast.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But there'd still be competition... If both of us want to grow, and there are limited resources, then we have to compete - even if we're not eating other organisms.On the other hand, everything existing in perfect harmony with unlimited energy provided for free is not the gauge that we should be using to judge evil, in my opinion. What do you mean now? People have always accepted or rejected religious teachings and formed their own conclusions. That's cool, but "I think the world should be better than it is so therefore God is evil" is not a convincing argument.

I care about human intelligence, but I cannot care less about fish intelligence. I'll bite a fishes head right off if I'm hungry enough. Fish intelligence has no value to me. And perfection is the enemy of good. I don't think you'll find me saying that God is, actually, all-powerful. I have no use for that term.The world is getting better - "God isn't doing it fast enough for my taste, so therefore He is evil" is not a convincing argument. You assume that it is the way that things should be. Go right ahead, but don't think it's convincing. So yeah: pointless.

So we take our kids to the zoo. The Lions have a place to stay, and there is a high wall around their lair, as well as a sign warning people to stay off of the wall. One kid climbs up on the wall and wants to take a selfie with the lions behind him. He loses his balance and falls down into the pit. After being cornered, the lion drags him back inside the lair and eats him. Is the zoo responsible for the consequences?What alternatives would the legal system insist that the zoo provide?

You can't get beyond the existing model. Why do we need to grow? Why are we not grown? Why do we need to comptete for limited resources? These are not givens if you're a god designing a world. Why not! We judge evil based on harm to others. Your god has created the ultimate harm. Your god promises perfect harmony - but only after he's tortured us and all his creation. Cobblers, people have always been told what to believe on pain of death or worse. We live in liberal times in a liberal part of the world - we forget. Well I admire your attempt to downplay multiple, planetary-wide genocide - and worse - as 'should have been better' but really, what more does a god have to do to be called evil?

I don't think we have a difference of opinion.
I don't find such an argument valid either. All moral arguments stem from personal definitions (opinions) on what is right/wrong/good/evil.
None of them are ever any more convincing beyond "because I think so."