rainbow walking

IMO the FWD is an inconclusive argument for one basic reason:

No purpose attributed to our creation.

Most proponents of the FWD lock in on an assumption that freewill is an apt description of man’s nature as man. From this they reason forward to justify their arguments for an omnimax god and an evil world co-existing. The problems they encounter in making this argument viable stem not from their basic assumptions so much as from their lack of pertinent information.

A viable freewill defense must begin with a purpose for creation in the first place. You can’t start with freewill and work towards a purpose, but must start with a purpose and work freewill into the picture.

For instance, the book of Revelation declares that god created man for his pleasure. If we allowed this as a purpose then we have a rational reason for allowing man some say in his own affairs. Then the proponent of freewill could argue that, while men making evil choices displeased god, those choices almost always, eventually led to some good which, in turn, pleased god. They could also argue this as the reason for their god’s lack of intervention. He is giving the greater good time to surface.

The only conclusion to be drawn from this, that makes any sense to me, is that evil is a necessary component of good. That you can’t have one without the other and be able to appreciate goodness, or recognize evil. Hence their god's purpose for creation being to demonstrate the power of goodness over evil.

Of course...the jury is still deliberating that one.