Why would a perfect being make an imperfect world?

[Asmodee]

At what point does an apple exist? When it appears on a tree, or did it always potentially exist even when it's tree was still in seed form?

The apple doesn't just magically appear, it came from somewhere.

Therefore inside the apple seed exits all the apples it will produce it just requires certain conditions for the apples to be made manifest.

The spoken word of God is the original seed, he spoke and his thoughts materialized.

That is a very simplistic way to look at it, and not very accurate.  An apple "exists" when it exists and not before.  I can't take an apple out of a seed and eat it because the apple doesn't exist yet.  A potential apple is also referred to as "not an apple".

Listen please, God is and always will be God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, they are one God in three persons, they are like minded and like matured. They have always existed and were for time unknown existing fine without this universe or humanity. Yes they had the choice to accept or reject Christ even though at that time He wasn't referred to as the Messiah. Some believe it was Christ who walked in the Garden with them and I tend to believe this, too.
So the only thing you smell is your inability to understand the scriptures.

No, I'm thinking it's your inability to understand the difference between Jesus the god and Jesus the man.  It is a difficult concept.  I'll give you that.  I'm not sure if you believe in the trinity, three distinct parts of a single being (it sounds as if you do) or no trinity, they are all just manifestations of the same single being.  Regardless, you have Jesus the god and Jesus the man.  I can't believe I'm about to give you a Sunday School lesson, but here goes.

God is perfect.  God it not subject to weaknesses of the flesh such as temptation.  Yet Jesus was tempted for 40 days.  Why would the devil bother to tempt a God he knew full well was beyond temptation?  Because Jesus was more than simply a piece of God, Jesus was also a man and it was Jesus, specifically, NOT just "God the son", who was the Christ.  Only as a man was he subject to tribulation, temptation and pain.  God is beyond all these things.  So while the argument can be made, and rightly so, that the three bits have always existed, the one bit WAS NOT "the Christ" until AFTER being born in flesh.

Your claim was that free will consisted solely of your ability to choose to accept or deny, specifically, Christ.  NOBODY in the twelve tribes of Israel accepted Christ because God the Christ had not yet been born.  While "God the son" may have existed, "God the Christ" did not.  As I said, I know it's a difficult concept.  But "the Christ" is also known as JESUS Christ because he's not "the Christ" until you add the fleshy bits.  So yes, before the birth of Jesus people worshiped the same God, but they did not "accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior".  Jesus was "the Christ".  PART of him was God the son.  The other part was man.  Until you put the two together you don't have a Christ.  People don't seem to understand that Christ is a title, not a name, and I think that might be where you are getting confused.

I think you are a bit confused as to the nature of free will.  Free will is the ability to act freely according to my own will.  What you're talking about is the ability to make one single, extremely specific choice.

I know what free will means and I know God can act upon it because of His providence over His creation. Like I said before the only choice that God will not interfere with is our choice to accept Him (Jesus). Jesus said that He and the Father are one and that no one comes to the Son without an invitation from the Father.
God may or may not interfere in some decisions you make or have made but, you will never know if He has unless you are serving Him. God allows you many choices in your life without interference but sinful choices come with a price, non-sinful choices have no price against them by God or man.

GC

I think you do know what free will is.  And I think you know very well you're not using it correctly.  If you didn't know what free will was and you did think you were using it correctly then you would say simply, "God gives us free will."  That's the entirety of what you have to say when you know what it is and believe that you are using it correctly.  But that's not what you say.  You add a definition afterward.  You say, "God gives us free will and that means, specifically, the ability to freely choose to accept or reject Christ."  When you add a definition after a common word or phrase it tells me that you do know what it means and you do know that you're not using it correctly, which is why you feel the need to add the definition you are using, one which you know that no reasonable person would infer on his or her own.

So perhaps you could save some confusion in the future and just stop using the term "free will", using just your definition for it instead.  Because you are not saying we have free will, you are saying we are free to make a single, binary choice.  I know you would really like to shoehorn the concept of free will into what you're saying, but you and I both know very well that it doesn't fit.  So stop lying to yourself and stop lying to me.  Either we have "free will PERIOD" or we have "SOME DEFINITION OF WHAT WE HAVE".  We cannot have both "free will", a term which stands on its own and means the ability to act without interference according to our own will, AND "some restrictive subset of true free will".  It's one or the other AT BEST, and the Bible says it's not "free will", by it's real definition.

An interesting note here, I'm sure you didn't realize you were doing this, but you're confusing the argument as a means of increasing your authority in the discussion.  You start out saying, essentially, that God has a right to fuck with creation however she likes.  I never said she didn't.  If she wants to change what she made that is her right.  I concur with that one hundred percent.  I never even suggested that wasn't true.  But that's not the issue here, is it?  The issue is "DO WE HAVE free will?", not "IS IT GOD'S RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH free will?"  You've added the issue of God's rights as a way of imparting authority into your position, even though I've never called those rights into question.  And this is why, a few months ago, I stated that, by instinct, I don't trust what Christians are telling me.  You don't even realize when you're slyly changing the conversation to artificially bolster your position, allowing you to argue from a position of more authority.  Rather than make a compelling argument, and let's be honest for a change, it's because you don't have one, you've chosen to assert authority.