The flaw here is he’s all powerful. If you believe the Adam and Eve story (and even if not it makes a good small case argument) he created the garden, created the tree and fruit, created the serpent, knew they’d eat the fruit, knew he’d damn them for it and they’d suffer for it, and chose to do this anyway. He trivially could also have created a world where they chose not to. Even when given the freedom of choice, he knows what choice will be made (since time is not relevant to him) and can set things up to create any outcome.

You're right to point out that God knew what would happen. In Orthodox theology, this is acknowledged—but it's essential to distinguish foreknowledge from predetermination. God's knows the outcome of free choices but doesn't coerce them. His foreknowledge does not violate our freedom.

More importantly, God is not only omnipotent but all-good. And since God is the source of all goodness, the possibility of choosing anything other than God is the possibility of choosing evil—which is, by definition, a lack or distortion of the good. If we are to love God freely, we must be free to reject Him.

Therefore yes, God could have created a world where Adam and Eve never fell—but that would not be a world of genuinely free persons. It would be a world of perfectly programmed beings, and Orthodoxy insists that freedom is essential to personhood. Without it, love isn't possible.

Also, it's important to clarify: Orthodoxy does not teach that God "damned" humanity for the Fall. The consequence of sin is death and corruption, not divine vengeance. God's response was not punishment but a rescue mission—the Incarnation. The “Tree of Life” returns in the Cross.

It’s not a risk. He knew what would happen. He created something where this specific thing is what would come to be with fill awareness and decided that’s what he wanted, if it’s true. It’s not negligence, it’s indifference to suffering. There is no other option for it than that, since he could choose to have made something where it didn’t exist. Maybe we can’t imagine what that would be, but that’s what it means to be omnipotent.

From our human perspective, it may seem this way. But God did not create evil or suffering—He permitted it as the cost of freedom, because only through freedom can there be love, growth, and communion. What matters is not just that suffering exists, but how God responds to it.

And His response is not indifference, but sacrificial love. In Christ, God enters our suffering, takes it upon Himself, and opens a path to life. The Cross is not God watching suffering from a distance—it’s God partaking and being the example for all of man for our sake.

Yeah, that’s fine if it helps you. However, every religion has this claim, so it isn’t evidence that it’s correct. That’s fine. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.

While it may not mean much to you I would be remiss not to defend Orthodoxy here. Faith isn’t blind belief or wishful thinking; it's trust grounded in revelation, history, and experience. The resurrection of Christ, the lives of the saints, the enduring wisdom of the Church—these are not “proofs” in a modern empirical sense, but they are reasons for belief.

Furthermore I don't know what your standards for evidence are but I encourage you to look at arguments like the Transcendental Argument for God. It argues that universals like logic, reason, and math are only justified if God exists. (e.g. X (God) is necessary for Y (logic, math etc). Y therefore X.)

If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify. Furthermore without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally?

Believing in God is foundation to a worldview that relies on universals the alternative is arbitrarily granting yourself self-evident axioms.

Two Paths

The revelation of God is one that compounds on the past. Creation, Expulsion, Punishment, Enrichment, Liberation, Exile etc until you reach God incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ who uses the history of human failures to illustrate the grace of God and the establishment of a new covenant that saves all people. This is a logical progression.

Which is kind of my point. A logical progression of revelation implies change over time in god's plan, actions, or relationship with humanity. But a truly perfect, eternal, unchanging truth wouldn't require progression or revision. If the Divine Truth was perfect and eternal and true, why did it need changing? Evangelicals talk about the 'new covenant' all the time, but humanity isn't any different now than it was then, why did we need a new one? Seems like either god changed or the truth wasn't eternal.

I haven’t seen a compelling case that divine truth has been fundamentally corrupted.

Corrupted might not be the right word, but we have examples of, say, King James commissioning his own bible to support the divine right of kings. But aside from that, human fallibility plays a part in the transmission of this truth, and anyone who has played a game of telephone in grade school can tell you how that tends to go: you line up the whole class, whisper something into the first kid's ear, they whisper into the next, and what started out as 'Billy can't come to school today because he's sick' comes out the other end as 'little Billy died' or whatever. Even if you assume each person in the chain intends to transmit it faithfully people make mistakes, there are disputes over word choice and changes to meaning over time in translation, there are newly-discovered ancient texts that cast new light on the ones we had, etc. I don't know about fundamentally corrupted, but if the perfect eternal truth is all of those things then something else has to account for the paradoxes, and if we're assuming the literal existence of god then that leaves only human fallibility.

I recognize you may disagree with the points I adequately communicated or have questions about ones I failed to describe well. I am a fallible human after all 😂.

Me too man, I'm just here to have an engaging conversation and learn a little something. All we can do is do our best to own mistakes and not be shy about admitting fault.

You may find that many of the contradictions you’re grappling with don’t exist in Orthodox thought in the same way they might in some Western traditions. I’d encourage looking into Orthodox apologia for a perspective not burdened by the theological inheritances of later Western heresies like penal substitution or strict determinism...

That doesn't surprise me. What little I know of the early history of Orthodoxy is that there was an early, pretty severe schism over some fundamental stuff that sent the two churches in very different directions. I am curious to know more, though, so I hope you stay and keep the discussion going. I admit that (probably because the way I fell out of Christianity and then into a long but fortunately-ended period of atheism) that Orthodoxy was never really on my radar in my religious studies. But I am a more curious person than I once was with considerably more free time, so I'll do some poking about and see what I can find. ;)

An aside about “war crimes” ... be wary of using a modern lens when assessing the ancient.

That's entirely fair. I don't think I was intentionally doing it but there may have been some subconscious stuff going on there. My intent, and perhaps I should've chosen a better tool, was to use the terminology of modern ethics to convey the weight of my distaste for the idea of punishing one person for another's crime in any context.

What is the epistemic justification for Good and Bad in a world where everything is relative? Philosophically it is an arbitrary critique without grounding.

I don't think everything is relative, nor do I think god is the only source of morality. Even without modern utilitarian concepts like least-harm, it's pretty clear that ancient human cultures had a concept of justice that depended on the simple and self-evident truth that causing intentional harm to others is bad. It may have been applied unevenly and inconsistently, but. And hell, even a toddler with barely a grasp on language, much less culture or philosophy, can tell the difference between getting bitten by the kid you bit and getting bitten by some kid because she thought you bit her. They're unhappy at being bitten in either case, but - and I've seen this in my nieces and nephews - they get downright angry when they feel that sting of injustice, even if they can't describe it.