Passage: "The 'free will defense' in philosophy attempts to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God. Proponents argue that a world with free moral agents, even if they sometimes choose evil, is inherently more valuable than a world populated by automatons incapable of moral choice. Therefore, God allows evil as a necessary byproduct of granting humanity genuine free will. Critics, however, contend that this defense fails to account for natural evils (like earthquakes or diseases) that are not products of human choice. Furthermore, they question whether an omnipotent God could not have created beings with free will who always choose good, or at least a world where the consequences of evil choices are less severe. The debate thus hinges on the nature of 'goodness' itself and the limits of divine power and benevolence." The author's primary purpose in this passage is to:

1. AArgue against the validity of the free will defense.
2. BDemonstrate that evil is incompatible with an omnipotent God.
3. CPresent a balanced overview of the free will defense and its criticisms.
4. DPropose an alternative solution to the problem of evil.