I never claimed any such thing. I went along with it when you claimed it, but I never proposed it.
It only took you a handful of posts before you had to start making stuff up, Zippy.
Here's where it started:
So yeah, quit making stuff up, bro.
You are contradicting yourself, plain and simple. Go back and re-read my posts. It's all there, even in the details. Your oft-repeated conclusion in this thread that humans do evil by necessity is itself contrary to the very notion of free will, as is your (false) claim that Christians believe that no human has ever gone without committing evil.
Else, try writing an actual formal argument for your position.
Such a premise is an empty gesture which you implicitly contradict:
God can do anything logically possible
Having free will and having zero desire to do evil are not mutually exclusive properties
God can create a being with free will and with zero desire to do evil
A being with zero desire to do evil is better than a being that has a non-zero desire to do evil
God chose to create an inferior product.
To repeat myself: why did you conclude that, "God chose to create an inferior product"? You are implicitly relying on a disjunctive syllogism:
A: God creates beings with free will and zero desire to do evil
B: God creates beings with free will and non-zero desire to do evil
You defend
~A by appealing to the idea that since humans do evil, they must therefore have a desire to do evil.
Well, I never said you have to have a desire to have an ability.
Your idea is that, "Humans do evil, therefore they must have a desire to do evil." You conclude that God must have given humans a desire which necessarily causes them to do evil. This is a contradiction of free will. A "free will" which co-exists with necessitation towards evil is not a free will at all, and your claim that by positing such a chimera you have accepted the theist's understanding of free will is straight up nonsense.
The theist's claim is, "Humans do evil, therefore they must have the ability to do evil." They do not fallaciously presuppose that this ability entails necessitation (as this would be the exact opposite of free will). The theist is the one who separates ability from (necessitarian) desire. You are the one who conflates them.
Nor does the theist, upon observing the existence of evil, conclude that a necessitarian desire must therefore exist. Rather, they conclude that a non-necessitarian ability exists,
as I pointed out in my very first post (and which should have precluded this whole strange discussion). Indeed I would submit that it is highly irrational to conclude that when a human acts they must have been necessitated towards that act; and at the very least it begs the question at hand (i.e. free will).
I'm tired of repeating myself and I'm tired of your laziness. 'Not sure that I will post again in this thread. 'Not sure that I need to.