The fall could not just as easily been avoided by an all knowing being and here is why. No analogies needed. (which my original analogy had nothing to do with the fall)
If God removes the tree, he removes mans opportunity to choose right from wrong.
Choice without knowledge is meaningless, plus again this has nothing to do with having the opportunity to choose anything. You're trying to make the analogy of a parent disciplining a child, using low key and mild situations like running on gravel or jumping on the bed; hence the child falls or bumps into the wall and hurts themselves. However, we are talking about the equivalent of a child, in a place where the comparison is to a tree that possesses the very knowledge to even know what choice is right from wrong.
What good is a choice if I can't tell the difference between right and wrong?
And God was not acting careless (like a father leaving a loaded gun with a child) because He had given them the instructions do not eat of the fruit of the tree or you will surely die.
And you could tell your daughter not to touch the gun, because they might hurt themselves. Yet in their innocence and carelessness they do so anyway, because they are less capable and knowledgeable then yourself. You would still be placed in jail as certainly and surely as it would be 'gods' responsibility for creating a situation where someone lacks the knowledge of the consequences of their actions.
Again, the tree of KNOWLEDGE ( of good and evil, note: christians add good and evil, more so then hebrew interpretations of the first book of the torah, there seems to be a concentration on 'good' and 'evil' despite it not having the same connotation in jewish interpretation ), what good is a CHOICE if I do not have the KNOWLEDGE to know which is right or wrong?
Plus, you just engaged in an arbitrary rationalization to force biblical myth into a presumption of a conclusion you want to draw. That is, you made up the rationalization to say god wasn't being careless.
(ie the argument with the serpant). Secondly, they were not destined to eat the fruit,
An omnipotent and omniscient being removes any chance of their actions not being completely and inescapably destined to occur. The incoherence of 'free will' introduces a qualification, at least in the christian idea of 'free will', that is wholely incompatible logically speaking with the attributes associated with the biblical 'god'. There is no chance or option for them not to choose another path, as it will occur inevitably.
Plus, 'free will' as its being described in the christian apologetic is a bizarre 'black box' that is virtually inseparable from another 'black box' that generates choices based on random chance. To simply illustrate, imagine two black boxes, one A and one B. One box has the agent of 'free will' in it while the other box contains an agent of pure random chance. Now, allow options to be selected from each of the agents in the black boxes, please describe which one is random and which one is free will?
he didn't force them to eat the fruit and then punish them, they chose,
Irrelevant, even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt that free will could exist under an omnipotent and omniscient being, their choice is meaningless since they lacked the knowledge and foresight to even reasonably make choices at all. They would simply be as mindlessly motivated by the temptations inherent in their natural design, ie if they make the wrong choice then they make the wrong choice as they were perfectly made to do so.
(in fact, the book of Genesis says, she saw that it looked good and was pleasing and so she took it and ate it). Why would God be blamed for that.
Because god represents an agent of infinite ability and knowledge. God knows what will happen, what could be done to prevent it, how to design it so that it isn't even necessary, and could simply create the 'end goal' situation that god is supposedly going to anyway.
ie The god of biblical myth could perfectly make perfect free will, complete with the perfect knowledge to know which option to choose or not to choose.
That God would create a women? That God would create a possibility to disobey? That we would have the capacity to rebel against His rules? Where is the problem?
That you even think that is somehow an intellectually valid answer, on top of the grossly negligent and out right dishonest attempt to distance the obvious analogy of the unknowledgeable child being given access to the loaded weapon. Not to mention the stupidity of furthering the myth farther in that all the descendants of the child who harms themselves, is equally punished for a choice they had no part in in the first place.