http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iAZl-pO-l4
The concept is of God creating/providing/sustaining etc. lesser quality be-
ings. Whether the idea has God having foreknowledge or not, he'd know them as
such, not just when they showed themselves as such. It depends how you inter-
pret the symbolism same as regarding their ultimate fate--it depends which af-
terlife belief you add to it, too.
It's also meant to carry the idea of God doing it with God's prerogative over
lesser quality beings. It's like asking if a person in a world without animals
could create them knowing they'd love pets and a good hamburger. Answering that
they only go for one or the other forces the choice and can't be the answer.
Also, consider all the things people do with their freedom of choice and self-
ishness and selflessness yourself--you wouldn't consider it all good or all bad
or you've simplified the truth into a distortion that isn't true. If you
wouldn't, why would a trancendent being? You could rationalize this way or that
what to do with them if you could have a transcendent oversight on it and
ability to do something about it.
Whatever you choose, it isn't apparent that you'd have to decide that people
have earned the red carpet treatment by works and there's something wrong with
anyone who didn't think so, so there wouldn't have to be something wrong with
God if he didn't think so, either.
Either way, reconcile the God concept with the good and bad of the life
they're given, too-- the life and death (Job, etc). It's got its good and bad--
win and lose. If it's just lose and lose to you, I hope you take good care and
feel better. If it's not just lose and lose to you, it isn't with the God con-
cept, either. If you can find love in being given the chance to live and find
the love in life, you can find it in the God concept, too, if you want to.