Counter-argument to the free will apologetics

[Shol'va]

As we all know, a common apologetic to the problem of evil is free will. I've never considered it neither coherent nor satisfactory even when I didn't know anything about some of the common objections to it out there.
I have a counter-argument that I wanted to put to the test, and I have a feeling it's already been proposed. The issue is complex enough that it's entirely possible I haven't delved as deep as I think :)
When somebody attempts a rebuttal of the problem of evil with free will, I would point out that in every instance when one person is exercising the god-given free will and does harm, it is especially obvious in situations when that harm is done unto another person that the victim's free will is violated.
So it seems that the inescapable fact is that free will is not a good counter-argument because this creates the uncomfortable reality in which God chooses to honor one person's free will, while ignoring the others. As such, considering the evil in the world, it appears that God is consistently choosing to honor the free will to do evil, while not protecting the free will of those upon whom harm is visited.
Any thoughts to this line of thinking?

[Solitary]

Considering that we are all genetically endowed by differences and also environment that effect our behavior, feelings, a way of thinking, I don't see how a God would have anything to about it, one way or the other. I personally don't believe in free will after seeing what neurology has brought to light. It seems that most people forget how we are one with our bodies and unconscious drives and knowledge even. If you don't believe me I'll get PattMatt and Eve to explain to you why your so tense.  Solitary

[Berati]

As we all know, a common apologetic to the problem of evil is free will. I've never considered it neither coherent nor satisfactory even when I didn't know anything about some of the common objections to it out there.
I have a counter-argument that I wanted to put to the test, and I have a feeling it's already been proposed. The issue is complex enough that it's entirely possible I haven't delved as deep as I think :)
When somebody attempts a rebuttal of the problem of evil with free will, I would point out that in every instance when one person is exercising the god-given free will and does harm, it is especially obvious in situations when that harm is done unto another person that the victim's free will is violated.
So it seems that the inescapable fact is that free will is not a good counter-argument because this creates the uncomfortable reality in which God chooses to honor one person's free will, while ignoring the others. As such, considering the evil in the world, it appears that God is consistently choosing to honor the free will to do evil, while not protecting the free will of those upon whom harm is visited.
Any thoughts to this line of thinking?

First off, God (or any supernatural) is not necessary to the belief in free will.

However, as a counter to the apologetics to the problem of evil I don't think your argument works. Playing the devils advocate  if god intervened to protect the innocent from having their free will violated... no one would have the opportunity to be evil. So any intervention by a god would violate freewill whether god intervenes for the good or for the evil. For free will to exist in the god scenario someone has to suffer.

[stromboli]

First off, God (or any supernatural) is not necessary to the belief in free will.

However, as a counter to the apologetics to the problem of evil I don't think your argument works. Playing the devils advocate  if god intervened to protect the innocent from having their free will violated... no one would have the opportunity to be evil. So any intervention by a god would violate freewill whether god intervenes for the good or for the evil. For free will to exist in the god scenario someone has to suffer.

By that same logic, if god has ever intervened on behalf of or to the detriment of man, he has then violated his own tenet of free will. And he has.

[Berati]

By that same logic, if god has ever intervened on behalf of or to the detriment of man, he has then violated his own tenet of free will. And he has.

Good point and I see that as the self refuting argument about god giving us free will. Either he gives us freedom or he stays out of our affairs. Can't have it both ways.

[Mandingo]

free will is not a good counter-argument because this creates the uncomfortable reality in which God chooses to honor one person's free will, while ignoring the others.

Well, either god is mercurial or he's got PMS.
Shit happens.

[ClareTherese]

As we all know, a common apologetic to the problem of evil is free will. I've never considered it neither coherent nor satisfactory even when I didn't know anything about some of the common objections to it out there.
I have a counter-argument that I wanted to put to the test, and I have a feeling it's already been proposed. The issue is complex enough that it's entirely possible I haven't delved as deep as I think :)
When somebody attempts a rebuttal of the problem of evil with free will, I would point out that in every instance when one person is exercising the god-given free will and does harm, it is especially obvious in situations when that harm is done unto another person that the victim's free will is violated.
So it seems that the inescapable fact is that free will is not a good counter-argument because this creates the uncomfortable reality in which God chooses to honor one person's free will, while ignoring the others. As such, considering the evil in the world, it appears that God is consistently choosing to honor the free will to do evil, while not protecting the free will of those upon whom harm is visited.
Any thoughts to this line of thinking?

God honors the good choices made my all whether he/she believes in Him or not. I even believe angels have free will. I believe God is all knowing. That brings into light one of the many shared universal questions about God. "Why did create Satan at all in the beginning if He knew he was going to leave him?". Well, my personal thought is not only did God give him free will but He didn't want to control him either, etc. It's a large subject that's better in person with people. But, I share all these questions with you. It's not bad to ask them. God in general is a large and complex discussion. But, since coming to believe in him based of personal evidence I've come to understand a lot already by His Grace. So, I see non believers as equals. No one is better than the other.

[stromboli]

 

So, I see non believers as equals. No one is better than the other.

No you don't. The Great Commission:

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

It doesn't say "ask them if they are interested" It assumes that they need to be converted. That in itself is contradictory to free will. Evidence? Try the genocidal actions of the Catholic church, the Russian Episcopal church and every other group, including Dominican friars that enslaved natives to dig gold for them. They were not given a choice.

Free will is based on the concept of choosing between options. If your option is believe in me or perish, that is not an option and that is not free will. And god does not honor choices. The people of Noah's time chose not to worship him, so he destroyed the entirety of the human race.

[Shol'va]

if god intervened to protect the innocent from having their free will violated... no one would have the opportunity to be evil.

That is exactly my point. By NOT intervening at all, someone's free will is still violated. We instinctively consider free will as being that of the one that takes action, but the one that is acted upon still has free will, but has been robbed of the opportunity to exercise it. God has, at the very least, the power to restore that opportunity, but chooses not to.

[PickelledEggs]

That is exactly my point. By NOT intervening at all, someone's free will is still violated. We instinctively consider free will as being that of the one that takes action, but the one that is acted upon still has free will, but has been robbed of the opportunity to exercise it.

no it isn't.

Let's say a person walks down a street midday in a good neighborhood and another person drives by and shoots them. It was the first person's free will to go down that street in the first place. The consequences of walking down that street were chosen by him when he decided to walk down the street.

... Is what someone in the free will apologetics would say.

Sent via your mom.

[Shol'va]

But that person didn't choose to walk down that street with the ultimate outcome of losing their life. They were probably headed somewhere to do something.
Or is that a super weaksauce argument?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like the free won't argument.

If there was no god at all you won't see any difference in how people behave.

[PickelledEggs]

But that person didn't choose to walk down that street with the ultimate outcome of losing their life. They were probably headed somewhere to do something.
Or is that a super weaksauce argument?

It doesn't matter. It's their free will to walk down that street. If he is shot, it's because he is born a sinner, like everyone else on earth. It's a result of things either he has done in his past or sins his ancestors did that have not yet been dealt with and were passed down to him.

It's an argument very similar to one that I had with a fundie not too long ago. I'm just giving you responses that match what he said to me, more or less.

Shol'va, You and I can see the logic in what you're saying. And WE know it makes sense, but someone truly brainwashed to think and believe what we know is ridiculous and inconceivable, will have a very hard time wrapping their head around that their logic.... isn't logic at all.

[Berati]

That is exactly my point. By NOT intervening at all, someone's free will is still violated. We instinctively consider free will as being that of the one that takes action, but the one that is acted upon still has free will, but has been robbed of the opportunity to exercise it. God has, at the very least, the power to restore that opportunity, but chooses not to.

I don't think freewill is a guarantee of fairness or justice.
In order to be free to do good, we have to be free to do bad. Eliminate the possibility of either and you eliminate freewill for everyone.

... Is what someone in the free will apologetics would say. (had to steal this from eggsy)

[Shol'va]

In order to be free to do good, we have to be free to do bad.

I would ask, does this freedom go unchecked in the absolute sense, or does God keep tabs on it and intervenes sometimes?

Thanks to everyone for playing devil's advocate :)