The trolling response is obvious if you grew up around teenagers playing with this idea:

1. Men developed faster than women.
2. Men started as women in the womb then were able to develop past it.
3. God created a first draft in Adam, then said "i bet I could do it better a 2nd time, and I won't start from scratch this time"
4. There is always a first child when it comes to siblings. "rolls eyes"
5. Well Adam was the first, so there was no bloodlust. Due to eating the fruit, well there was a grudge match scheduled for having the time-out from paradise and introduction of death/bad/good/children - The terms of the grudge match were laid out: fruit of the woman to crush the snake.

To reduce your question down, you seem to be asking, "Why did x thing get created if it caused evil?"

I like to think that the answer is in how things are created. To create matter, you have to also create antimatter (if i understand that right). Perhaps, for God to create Good, he had to also create evil. A point that I have seen argued is "did god create everything from nothing" like was taught by the Catholic church, or "did god create from existing things" like organization.

In conclusion, what god did and why has a lot of questions around it, and it is easy to split a definition like "create" and get in a heated argument while talking past each other.

I personally think that "being as gods having a knowledge of good and evil" being the boon that the fruit of the tree gave is key to your question as there is no perception of good without the contrast of evil and vice versa.

**Source for personal belief: ** https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203&version=NIV The serpent lies to get past the reticence of eating/disobeying by saying "you shall not surely die" then persuades with an assertion that I take to be fact: "be like god having knowledge of good and evil".

Dont forget that he had to become a "magical zombie asking you to eat his flesh and blood to give you superpowers".

I had a professor make that exact argument... or perhaps he was quoting an argument of one of the greats. Anyway, the argument goes like this:

• if there is evil, and god has the power to stop it, but he doesnt due to his knowledge, then he is not omnicient
• if there is evil, and god has the power to stop it, but he doesnt and he has all knowledge, then he is evil
• if there is evil, and god does not have the power to stop it, then he is impotent

The first person then smugly smiles that they put God into a box and waits to hear the mental gymnastics from the Christian Philosopher.

The christian philosopher then brings up a few points that were straw manned:

• incomplete understanding of whether what we are seeing is "evil"
• the illusion of choice - are we simply clocks that were preprogrammed back when the big bang occured? Can a clock have "evil" within it?
• moral agents with ability to make meaningful choices - The actions of the omnipotent being (God) are tied by pesky rules regarding choice because the being (God) could eliminate choice: the being could choose the perfect stimuli to create an exact copy of an ideal AI in a bio-mechanical body instead of moral agents who choose to be a dick or not. Therefore, if this fact pattern is reality, then there must be "something special" about being a moral agent and having a relationship albeit distant with an Omnipotent being.

The philosophers then keep asking questions to reduce the opponents argument until they conclude with the following question: "What is?" then they leave as friends.

The way you are confident that you have covered all arguments is a little grating on me. From my understanding of philosophy and christianity, there is another option, but your extremely broad strokes in "option 2" i guess encapsulates it because it explains all actions and reasons for actions as "weird" and "important for some reason" when describing both the process and the destination.

Option 4:

Kicking the kids out after they should be legal adults

God had a ton of kids. He didn't want them to have failure to launch, so he set up them to have "knowledge of good and evil" and imperfect parents then each of god's kids (now with bodies as humans) have the choice to act as a moral agent. Moral agents can choose to be dicks or altruistic. The best humans get to be "joint heirs with Christ" and inherit all that Christ inherits. The rest... fail to launch and ultimately get a really nice bedroom and computer but that's about it. The kicked-out kid's perspective on their parent right after getting kicked out is extremely mixed.

Granted. All humans were blind to undefinable-xxx. They now have the third eye seeing with clarity. The visions of cthulu quickly drive all of humanity to extinction.

Granted. 3d printing of medical devices and brain microchips advance such that these people all get their senses and abilities. They quickly merge with machines by having excess memory in an external hard drive and sutured on personalities from the more advanced ai. Soon humanity is enslaved by the formerly blind, mute, deaf, and paralysed.

Granted. As a mortal brain changes to immortal, there is no start, so you get confused about when anything happens . the confusion persists until you devolve into seeking a hit of any drug (alcohol mostly). You take up holding a hammer

!/c/bossfight?

Living in the "self esteem" part of Maslow's pirimid when you are battling basic needs aka allergies, sleep, dehydration, dimentia, etc is a good way to be depressed. Focus on preservation of assets and restoring basic functions.

Well, yes and no. Most likely its adoption would be where petroleum stations start creating it on site and selling like a carbon neutral gasoline. Energy has to come from somewhere, so it will probably take solar power to store as fomate and sell as fuel