Coulda, woulda, shoulda?

I read a blog post on a question: "why did not God create a world with free being that could not sin?"

The answer entertained the question when it should not have, in my view, with all sorts of deterministed/Calvinistic contortions of which none had biblical warrant.

But here's the mistake in dealing with this question. It misunderstands sin as something out there and not in the choices people make.

So here's how the question in expanded form reads:

Could God have made a world where his image-bearing creatures were not his image-bearing creatures?

OR

Could God have made a world where creatures were free to turn from fellowship with him but not free to turn from fellowship with him?

As  you can see the average smarty who asks this hypothetical question is dim on sin.

Then there's the problem of all hypotheticals. The include so many implicit assumptions as to be not worth the air they are breathed in. They are about another world, but do not fully describe that other world to make sense of it. Just varying one existential component of the world changes the world.