always thought agnostic or your weak atheism was really just a non position, and as such has no seat at table of discussion. They are the tennis referee calling shots in our out, but not part of the game. And in general the players can call their own shots.

Not a big fan of your soccer ball problem, it is just a conclusion with out a premise-

If you said

1 I own a soccer ball
2 I keep my sporting equipment in a closet

Therefore there is a soccer ball in the closet

Then we may have a view if your conclusion is valid or not

I think if you want a seat at the table, you should have a position that there is or is not a God.

Is God's judgment a voluntary (i.e. non-necessary, i.e., contingent) action? If we posit that God does not partake of contingency (a common assertion in many schools of theology), does that mean that God is "forced to do" what he does; and does that reduce his freedom, or his dignity, or both?

as a theological position - God does not exist, as we would define it, as occupying some space in a period of time. If God is outside time and space, is anything we would call an action possible ? I would think anything we would call an action to mean some change over some period of time. God has no need to act.

If we are allowing the existence of a God, who is all powerful, and omniscient. Than most arguments about His actions, or motives, fall on the simple premise that we could actually understand or know in any real way them if we saw them.

I think why one believes one thing or the other to be true is a prerequisite point before a value judgement can be made on one's rightness or wrongness in " picking" it.

There are 3 ways we can believe something to be true. Fact, Reason, or Faith.

If one picks to believe something in spite of the fact that it is not factually true - i do not see how anything objectively good can come from that.

If one picks to believe something in spite of overwhelming argument that it is not reasonable true - i do not see how anything objectively good can come from that.

However, if not contrary to objective fact, or overwhelming reason, I think one is free to pick (within some bounds) anything to believe if one finds utility in it.

I think this is just reworded argument from evil. Difficult to tap dance this point back and forth across the line between philosophy and theology. Or between what we believe to be true based on reason and what we believe to be true based on faith.

Assuming we are conceding for the sake of argument there is an omniscient God, than the basis for free will lies in the concept of compensating goods. In short - God allows free will, and the less than perfect results there of, because it is a better state of affairs than a predestined perfection.