Since the discussion is going on, I will post my refutation for the protestant, unbiblical, unchristian doctrines of sola fide and predestination (which is actually fine in and of itself, but not to the ridiculous extremes Calvin brought it).

First, it’s wrong to say that God and man have an equal stake in working for the latter’s salvation. If that were the case, we wouldn’t believe (as per Catholic doctrine) that faith is a gift of the grace of God and that this grace, God’s way of opening to us essentially, is the one precondition to all salvation which man acts upon but does not in any measure and to any degree cause by his energy alone. But if we entirely take away the role of man, who is it that entirely replaces him? We cannot indeed say that God, Who is the type of all virtue and infinitely good, is also the direct source of evil, and it would be any less false to claim that man is an inherently bad creature, for that would require an inherently bad creator. Evil can, in fact, only be explained by the existence of free will as a superior form of good, and is thus allowed by God, Who, as shown time and time again, for instance in Mt 8:28-34 and Jn 13:27, has full power and control over them, and could, if He wanted, destroy them at any moment. But if free will does not exist as the calvinists essentially postulate, that’s tantamount to saying that the devil is at least as powerful as and independent from God, since he had the power to singlehandedly corrupt Eve before the fall which is what made us prone to sinning in the first place, and this of course is blasphemy and Manichaeism. Not to mention that if by our fallen nature we can choose evil, as you say, it seems fallacious to me to propound that we can also not choose evil, which is essentially choosing good, as evil is perceivable to us as a lack of good.

As philosophy (which is, by the way, a science, though not empirical), seems not to be your thing, I'd also like to have your attention on three biblical events that unequivocally, not considering, of course, Genesis 3 which I have discussed above. First, in the Old Testament, especially in the Book of Numbers when the Jews are approaching the Promised Land, God tells them "do X or Y will happen", but their lack of faith becomes so severe He eventually decides to punish them *temporally* by not letting them enter Palestine (14:11-2) despite also forgiving that sin in v. 20 (the merits of the death of His Divine Son do not entail that temporal punishment will not be inflicted, or that all will be saved, since cooperating with the grace of faith is also meritorious of eternal life). God, in His infinite knowledge and wisdom, knows perfectly what His people will do, but He still gives them the chance to avoid that outcome so that they will not be able to say "God is evil" (which is essentially what Calvinists say, with their perverted understanding of the natural law) and blame someone else (namely, in this case, God Himself) for their own shortcomings (which is what Adam did to Eve when the Lord "confronted" them).
The second instance is the Annunciation: Mary's "fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum" (be done to me according to thy word) would have been redundant if not outright blasphemous, since according to you it was God's plan all along, so why would Mary, who was filled with the Holy Ghost, even need to say that, and basically *allow* God to act through her? Out of scrupolosness, this has nothing to do with the Catholic dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth of Jesus (for both of which by the way I can easily provide plenty of scriptural evidence), as it would be a direct consequence *and* a concause of her assent.
The third instance are Our Lord's parables, most of them actually, but the one I'd like you to focus upon is the parable of the talents (Mt 25:14-30), whose theme is *exclusively* the importance of choice. Indeed, the servants' master didn't leave any overseer, so to speak, to make sure that the tenants did their job as they were directly requested by him, but this doesn't means he couldn't have done it. He trusted them to obey him instead, and didn't positively coerce them to do what they were asked. Upon his return, he rewarded the two servants who obeyed him according to their merits (which in and of itself disproves the belief that works are not meritorious, something St. Paul vehemently insists about), but he punished the one who freely chose to disobey him. Now, you could say that I'm overthinking it and that Our Lord didn't "think" of this, and that thus my inferences are unjustified, but I mean, who am I to question what the Son of God Himself said?

Protestant doctrines, as this instance makes abundantly clear and self-evident, are doltish, logically unsound and fallacious, spiritually poisonous, and born of poor morals and intellectual laziness.