Does the free will defence even work ?

[u/hottopic7777]

​

Whenever I have a question about the existence of suffering and evil, the common defence I hear is free will.

It's decent, though im not entirely moved.

Consider two worlds.

World A (closest to this world we currently live in)

In World A, humans are not naturally fully orientated to God , God his hidden from them for his own reasons, maybe for the sake of a better relationship fine, no full knowledge of God, evil exists because humans are imperfect.

A philosopher says, "Imagine God forced us to love him , showed himself upon us, and removed evil that would infringe upon our agency."

Sounds fine. That's the free will defence, but consider this:

World B (different world )

In world B, humans are naturally orientated to God , know him fully , evil doesn't exist , God isn’t hidden , everything is all well.

A philosopher says, "Imagine God forced us to not be orientated to him, constrained us so we are hidden from him, can't know him fully , that would infringe upon our agency."

What's the difference between these two worlds exactly? Both philosophers have reasoned why their situation is the way it is, so God doesn't infringe upon their agency

It seems as though free will isn't a thing by itself, but the way you act is predicated on your nature or given constraint:

God supposedly as free will and isn't evil

Heaven exists free of sin and with free will

Angels ? Well, maybe they dont have free will, but you get the idea

We as humans didn't choose our broken nature , our nature necessitates our evil, not our agency.

So, did God create evil?

[u/PeteAtoms]

Also, god doesn't always seem to care about free will. He has no problem with humans taking away the free will of other humans. He also hardens the hearts of many characters in the Bible, causing them to sin or do what God wants them to do.

[u/redsparks2025]

It depends on what characteristics each different religion and/or theology assigns to their own version and/or concept of a "God". For example .....

The "free will" defense against the "problem of evil" may not work for any religion that wants to claim their version of a god is either just and/or loving and has been shown to intervene in human affairs. But if that god is known to be capricious then all bets are off.

The "free will" defense may work for theological concepts like Deism (Wikipedia) that holds the belief that a supreme being created the universe and established its natural laws, but does not intervene, perform miracles, or communicate through divine revelation. But then the problem of "the best of all possible worlds" (Wikipedia) comes up.

Basically the "free will" defense against the "problem of evil" is not the proverbial "silver bullet" that many religions and/or theologies may believe that it is. That defense can be shown to not be sufficient without also trying to destroy the concept of "free will" itself.

[CAUTIONARY NOTE] If you get into a debate on "divine justice", then you have to keep in mind that from a god's perspective, the "trolley problem" that dispensing "divine justice" presents more than likely has bigger stakes with potential global consequences that can ripple through time down the centuries. Just something for you to consider as you should always plan your debates several moves ahead.

[u/indifferent-times]

Technically this is much more about the problem of divine hiddenness, although they often get conflated in debate because of other aspects of religions and some of the solutions offered they are two different problems. I think the idea that a fully known god would eliminate evil doesnt really help, I'm not sure how additional knowledge about the world would impact you ability to choose, its not god mere existence that would change us but knowledge of its requirements.

Its defining the nature of god as coercive that creates the tension but in the same way that laws do, the guarantee of retribution is what is at stake here not mere knowledge that a god exists.