What you say is simply your opinion, with no objective measurable evidence to support your position. As you have not rigorously defined God's capabilities and you can not, because by definition God is beyond human understanding (Islamic tradition states this), then anything you assert about the capabilities of God are just your 'wishful' thinking.
So are you doing an internal or external critique of my views? You have suddenly switched to an external critique about a lack of evidence, whereas you started with an internal critique arguing that God is responsible for evils caused by human beings. For the internal critique, it is perfectly legitimate for me to simply state any of the views (which are Christian
views, not Islamic) which resolve any apparent tension you bring up. If it is an external critique you want to do, then you should have simply started by saying "there is no objective measurable evidence for your God" and left it at that (in fact I would have agreed with this statement, though not with your implicit scientistic criterion that measurable
evidence is required for rational belief).
Secondly, our responsibility is given to us by God, but a parent does not give the child responsibility in your analogy. I contend that a parent should not give anything to a child for which the child is not capable of understanding its capabilities or taking full responsibility for its use. God gives free will a parent gives a child a gun is analogous.
As I said previously, knowledge of the consequences of good and evil actions are given alongside free will and moral responsibility – indeed, they are necessary for free will and moral responsibility. Unless you want to argue that human beings do not know or understand that there are consequences to morally significant actions, your analogy does not hold.
Third, "free will" (and I'll talk about this in a second) is not simply a loaded device for causing harm, but an ability (with freedom from particular constraints) to do both good and evil given a knowledge of the consequences of the two.A gun can be used for good or evil, for murder or defence. A gun has no inherent moral properties any more or any less then 'free will' does. It is the use the gun is put to that has moral issues in exactly the same way that the exercise of 'free will' has moral implication.
If that is the level of analogy you are going to, then there is no need to choose a gun more than any other object: a lemon, a plastic beaker or a Crayon can also be used for good or evil and will thus suffice for your argument, which rather exposes the absurdity of your analogy.
The reason I tend to avoid the term "free will" is that I always find myself asking "free from what?", and people have so many different answers to that question that it becomes unhelpful. I've never found any particular tension between most understandings of "free will" and belief in the Christian God, and the same is true of "responsibility". I find much more tension between the existence of moral responsibility and metaphysical naturalism, because moral values and duties do not seem to sit comfortably within a naturalistic ontology.That's your problem, not mine.
Well…no, because I’m not a metaphysical naturalist (whereas, with you being an asupernaturalist, you are also forced to accept that either moral values and duties are part of the natural world, or do not exist).
So calling on God to help us out of our nuclear dilemma is a complete waste of time and effort. If God exists the dilemma is His problem as one way or another He caused it. If God does not exist then there is no point in calling for His aid is there?
You have yet to show that a Christian should believe that God is even a moral agent, let alone that if He exists He is responsible for man’s evil.