The Problem of Evil & Freewill Hello TheMadFool, it seems that you are countering the idea that free will solves the POE. I think the argument you are countering goes something like this:
1. If we have free will, then there will be evil (POE).
2. God gave us free will.
:. Therefore, there is evil. (1,2 MP)
Your rebuttal seems to be challenging premise 2 and I think your reasoning goes something like this:
1. If God greatly punishes the bad with Hell and rewards the good more than adequately with Heaven, then Hell is unacceptable, and Heaven cannot be refused.
2. God punishes the bad with Hell and rewards the good with Heaven.
3. :. Therefore, Hell is unacceptable, and Heaven cannot be refused. (1,2 MP)
4. If Hell is unacceptable, and Heaven cannot be refused, then God has made it mandatory for us to be good.
5. Hell is unacceptable, and heaven cannot be refused. (4)
6. :. God has made it mandatory for us to be good. (4,5 MP)
7. If good is mandatory, then we don’t have free will.
8. Good is mandatory. (6)
9. :. We don’t have free will. (7,8 MP)
10. If we don’t have free will, then it cannot explain the POE.
11. We don’t have free will. (9)
:. Freewill cannot explain the POE. (10,11 MP)
I would like to offer a rejection of this argument based on the first premise. The first premise of this argument is “begging the question”. By stating that Hell is “unacceptable” (i.e. not able to be accepted) and that Heaven “cannot be refused” (i.e. not able to be refused), this argument necessitates, from the beginning, that we assume the conclusion (that we do not have the ability to choose) is true, rather than proving it. I think I understand what you were trying to argue though. I believe you were meaning to demonstrate that Hell is a greatly undesirable or unreasonable option and that Heaven is a desirable or reasonable option, rather than literally “not able to be accepted” or “not able to be refused”.
With this revised understanding of the argument, I would like to offer a denial of premise 4. Just because one option is undesirable or unreasonable and the other is desirable or reasonable does not mean that the one offering the options has negated the ability to choose. They have simply made two different options. An example of this would be law enforcement giving people the options to either break the law and go to jail or obey the law and stay free. The first option is clearly undesirable and unreasonable and the second is desirable and reasonable, but the presenting of those options clearly does not take away people’s ability to choose the undesirable or unreasonable option.
I realize that my counter-argument does not prove that free will is the solution to the POE. I was only trying to demonstrate that your argument, as it is, does not show that we do not have free will, which would make our freewill a possible explanation for the POE.
Finally, I would like to suggest a possible reason why, if the above options are their choices, people choose the undesirable or unreasonable option. Possibly, because people do not believe that these are the choices they are given, they choose to do things that are “evil” and indirectly choose the undesirable option.