>>563
That makes no sense, God should only care about our free choice to love him, not our freedom to believe he exists. After all, how can we make a reasoned and informed choice about whom to love if we can't even figure out who exists?
This also totally fails to explain the misery-inducing flaws in the very design of nature itself, or the suffering of animals, and is entirely invalidated by compatibilist free will. But even if you come up with another excuse to explain away the flaws in nature's design and yet another for the suffering of animals, and illogically adopt a libertarian view of free will, you are still stuck in a quagmire of absurdity. For every argument entails that convincing evidence deprives us of free will. But there are a great many things for which we have convincing evidence. Are we to destroy that evidence, avoid it, so as to stay free? Don't you want convincing evidence before committing yourself to something? To assume we don't, to assume it is ever a good thing to believe a claim on unconvincing evidence, is to take a position on method that is wholly unlivable and inherently absurd, inverting all rationality, and divorcing faith from reason. It would mean that teachers, scientists, lawyers, are routinely committing unspeakable crimes against humanity, depriving everyone of their free will by providing convincing evidence to believe their claims.
There can be no merit in a belief that is held for bad reasons, in a loyalty that is given on uncertain knowledge of to whom you are pledging it, in a trust that is placed in something wholly unproven. And there can be no evil in telling a man what he needs to know to save himself and be happy, and proving to him, like Mr. Scrooge, that it is true. If you believe a man is obliged to prove a claim to you before believing it, then you cannot believe it is in any way wrong for a god to do so. If you believe it is a good thing for a preacher, an apologist, a missionary to give me more evidence and better reasons to believe, then you cannot believe it wrong for a god to do so. Otherwise, missionaries must be villains, and apologetics a wanton violation of man's free will. These are absurd conclusions. Therefore, this defense is absurd.