fistful, it seems to me you are trying to have it both ways.
I understand why you might see it that way. Perhaps you expect Christian doctrine to be the sort of children's fairy tale that comes in a few primary colors. If it were, I don't think I'd believe it either. Reality is too messy for such simple explanations. Nor does reality allow for the kind of dream-world that you would expect a God to create. Perfect beings that simply can not be tempted? I'm not sure even God could create such chimeras. The God of which I speak has a perfection that would be impossible to share. Let's say God could create another perfect being like himself. The very idea is problematic. Part of God's perfection is that he was not created, nor does he have a starting point. He simply exists. As you may know, the Bible calls Him "the I Am."
If the divine is a competent creator, why create imperfections, e.g. flawed humans, both physically and mentally? If the imperfections are intentional, meant as educational tools, why are the tools themselves obviously inefficient to the stated purpose, e.g. as witnessed by the colossal loss of time built into the system?
I don't think that's the view that I presented. If I gave that impression, I apologize. The very fact that humans and animals (and the universe itself) were created by another is a mark against our perfection. We are not self-existent, independent beings. But let us say that, undeterred by this, God went on to make beings that were as perfect as circumstances would allow. This is what the Bible describes.
After God created the heavens, earth, humans, etc, he said that it was Good. There was no drudgery or other unpleasantness. Adam and Eve (and Lucifer) fell, not due to some poor design on God's part, but due to their very excellence. They had no physical weakness, no mental or emotional deficiency, no anxiety over whether God loved them, nor any lack of self-esteem. They had no long list of difficult rules, such as the law of Moses.
Naturally, such nearly perfect beings thought themselves qualified to make their own rules about morality, just as you and I have also tried to do in the course of our lives. It is conceivable that God could have built into them some mechanism to enforce some humility on their minds, to keep them from testing His laws. But would such allow for independent thought or real choice, real morality, real love? Wouldn't we despise such folk as slavish dolts?
Who created the snake and the apple? Who created subjects #1 and #2 in a way that they could be tempted? Why is knowledge evil?
I don't think anyone here claimed that knowledge is evil. Gen. 3.22: "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil." In other words, Mankind chose to make up its own mind about good and evil, rather than letting God decide. This was the only knowledge that was forbidden. If God had made humankind like animals, without human awareness or rationality, we would not have been capable of sin. But we would have been that much further removed from perfection.
The snake and apple were both created by God. As I have mentioned earlier, the snake (Lucifer) was not created to be an evil being. He chose to become so, for much the same reasons as A & E did. The "apple," really the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, was also created by God, and why God would create such a thing is an intriguing question. The command not to eat of the tree is analogous to all the other commands of God, especially those we cannot understand. I believe God put it in the Garden to give Adam and Eve a very clear choice about whether they would obey or not. They were going to assert their own judgment over God's eventually, the "apple" made the choice immediate and clear, so that they could appreciate exactly what they were doing, rather than wandering into sin by negligence.
If the imperfections are intentional, meant as educational tools, why are the tools themselves obviously inefficient to the stated purpose, e.g. as witnessed by the colossal loss of time built into the system?
Here's where I think you're not understanding the Christian view point that most of us are espousing. Imperfections are not God's intention at all. Nor do we believe that God created evil, or that He can be blamed for its existence. These were things that humans (and some angels) insisted on having. We refused to simply live perfect and easy lives as God intended. This is not to say that anyone wants to be born with a birth defect or to be victimized by some random crime. But God does not want that either. He allows it because He respects the free will of His creatures, and as part of a plan intended for the maximum benefit of all mankind. It is also a mistake to believe that, if God allows harm to befall a small child, he is therefore not benevolent. God is not morally required to prevent harm to us. We have all sinned against him, and deserve maximum punishment. In truth, God grants us grace every day, in the form of oxygen, food, warmth, shelter, clothing, the love of family members, etc. We deserve none of these things. But what about the child who grows to hate God because of his horrific childhood? God could have put them in Eden. But we saw how that worked out.
The tools are inefficient? Compared to what? One stands on shaky ground when one claims that one can create a better world than the current scheme. (It would also be fun to charge you with Utopian socialism, but I won't be that cruel.
) But, really, we have no way of knowing whether a better world might have been created. This may well be the best of all possible worlds.
Why doesn't an omnipotent diety eradicate that which it hates?
As pointed out, God would have to eliminate your own humanity, in order to do so. Unless you would prefer to be destroyed entirely. We might wish for God to strike down the terrorists and pedophiles and those who talk in the theater. But if He were to strike down all the sinners, then their victims would have to go as well. Nobody's perfect. He would have to destroy humankind altogether, or degrade them to an animal existence without choice or reason. Even the Final Judgment of Hell is not "eradication," but a reward. Sinners choose a life apart from God, and God grants that.
If the divine is a competent creator, why create imperfections, e.g. flawed humans, both physically and mentally?
God does not create imperfections, although He may often allow them. As I said, the creation was originally without flaw. If God wished to eradicate all imperfection, he would have to destroy both of us. Even well-behaved, clean-cut boys like cosine and carebear would not escape.
If you are aware of books on the subject that make a logical self-consistent argument, please summarize.
I haven't read any books that deal specifically with theodicy. The first one I would read is
The Problem of Pain, because it's hard to go wrong with C.S. Lewis. For general questions about Christian apologetics, I would recommend the
Case For... series by Lee Strobel. Books consisting of interviews with prominent philosophers and theologians, they are a decent introduction.
The Case for Faith would be most apropos to this topic. You might also try
Making Sense Out of Suffering by Peter Kreeft,
Where is God When It Hurts? by Philip Yancy,
When God Weeps by Joni Eareckson Tada and Steven Estes, and
Where is God When Bad Things Happen? by Luis Palau. Those are listed in Strobel's bibliography. There's another book called,
When Good Things Happen to Bad People. Don't recall the author.
