Let Us make man in Our own image…And God saw that it was very good.
The problem with the dog analogy is that dogs don’t have a sense of morality. Nor do they have a conscience. There motives are mainly instinctive. Oh, you can train them to do some tricks, maybe even have them salivate at the sound of a bell, but their world is constricted to being a dog. Do dogs really love? Or is it just a fond affection for their master? I don’t think they can love in the sense that they can consciencely decide to obey, but they can be trained to do certain tasks (fetch the frisbee, roll over, retrieve the shot bird,etc). But that is the component of their nature as dogs that makes it possible. Try training a cat in the same way. Won’t work will it? How about your iguana?
We have a goldfish that my youngest daughter won at a church fair some 5 years ago. Surprisingly, it has survived this long (most goldfish I’ve seen won at fairs have died within three days). I know when the fish is hungry, because when she sees one of us approach the bowl, she sees us and goes into an agitated state, wiggling her tail back and forth. Yet when I shake the food into her bowl, she scurries away in a flash. Why? Because her survival instinct warns her of danger, even though I am actually preserving her life with the very food I’m providing. But beyond that, there is really no relationship between me and the fish. I care for the fish because I respect her as a creation that can be appreciated for her beauty. But the fish only looks to be fed.
Making us in God’s image has given us something wholely apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. God has given us attributes that match His own. That includes a conscience and a consciousness of our world and a rational mind to reason. He’s given us a means to commune with Him through the spirit of Man. (God may commune with the animals too, but not rationally). And if God is essentially Love, then we must have that capacity as well. Yet for love to happen, we must be able to consciencely exercise that love. Or in other words, the capacity to do good. But if we do have that capacity, then we also must have the autonomy to express that love through action (or non-action as the case may be).
Instead of talking predestination vs free will, we should be talking about our choices as it relates to God’s purpose in creating us. In the Garden, Adam and Eve were free to do whatever they wanted. To explore their world and behold God’s creation, including their own creation. Just as the rest as the animal were free to do what they wanted. They could talk to God without perfect communion, ask what they wanted and God would answer back. They were free to do what their hearts desired because it was all in accordinance with God’s creation. There was no sin, because there was nothing to indicate what they were doing was wrong.
But as soon as the prohibition of the tree was entered into their minds, a new dynamic was introducted. Why in the world would God place this prohibition? Why mess up what seems to be the perfect environment? This was inviting disaster!
Because this was the cost of making someone in His own image. If God has a will, then Man must also have a will. And the prohibition was to test Man’s will to see if it would he would obey (that is love) God. God could have made Man a dog, as loyal as a dog would be. But God wanted something better. He wanted someone who could consciencely love Him and Man’s fellow creation. How could He do that if Man didn’t have the choice to love?
They say the Law kills. It kills because it forces us to make a choice. To obey or disobey. And it cuts right into our core of being because it interferes with our volition and our desires. Because deep down, we don’t like to be told what to do. Our ego tell us that we are our own being.
Sin is not some object that rests in our heart. Sin if the fundamental tendancy to go against the Law of God. And that inclination was born as soon as God made that prohibition. I believe with or without the serpents help, man would have eventually caved. (Some believe that the serpent is Man’s ego, but that’s a different topic).
The question is, could man have avoided falling? Perhaps. What would the thought process be? There is nothing in the account to indicate that they even questioned God about the prohibition (though Eve was questioned by the serpent about it). But they knew that it had the consequence of death. But even that didn’t prevent them.
One might ask that of people who don’t accept Christ as Savior, even though they might believe they are going to Hell if they don’t. For some reason, their ego prevents them.
So why did they disobey? Because they were lied to? But the serpent really didn’t lie to them. Technically, they didn’t surely die that day, at least not physically. It did open their eyes (they saw they were naked). And they became like gods (they consented to their own will and desires). And they now know good and evil (especially the evil part in that they disobeyed God).
All the serpent did was to set up the independent thinking process for the woman to examine the situation in line with her ego, which had the potential to will independently from God. (The word “beguiled” in the Hebrew does not mean “tricked”, but rather it carries the thought of being seduced, causing the person to conjecture). The serpent preyed on the woman’s sense and sensabilities. She thought long and hard about it and it played into her decision making. It marked the point of becoming independent of God.
But I ask you, was this necessarily a bad thing? Well, it wasn’t what God would have preferred. He’d rather that they would have obeyed Him in the first place. (My thought is that eating the Tree of Life would have concluded the test of obedeince as it would have demonstrated a dependence on God in spite of the independent will of Man. The prohibition would have been lifted or the prohibited tree removed. The Man and Woman would have been essentially saved.)
The will of God is for Man to come into a relationship with Him. That is salvation, not just getting into heaven and avoiding hell. That relationship is based on Love that is reciprocated in a dependent-independent manner of speaking. We are free to be ourselves in Christ. And as long as the Life and Spirit of God resides in us, then we are made to be the creatures He intended us to be.
The drawing of God to Himself will never fade, and He will draw all men to Himself. And that persistence will continue until Man finally let’s go of his ego and falls back into the arms of God. Only then will His likeness be made complete in us. We will be made in His image once again as new creature in Christ.
The process of becoming like Christ is known as theosis in Eastern Orthodox theology apparently but I’m not especially familiar with how that process is perceived. I’ll tag [tag]akimel[/tag] as he may be able to enlighten us if he has the time. 
But my impression is that you just don’t find the responses concerning your sense of evil’s nature convincing. For my perception is that I and others who question your impression of freedom’s nature as the power of contrary choice have offered several responses as to why evil may be inevitable in finite creatures who are developing their distinct identity, etc. I imagine Dr. Talbott will continue to develop his own impression of how this may work. Telling Paidion that others have no thoughts responsive to these questions, or that your conclusions are “undeniable,” isn’t likely to persuade skeptics.