The Fruits of Free Will

Let us, for the sake of this argument, assume that there is a God. Now you must understand that by saying this, I do not necessarily mean a Catholic God, or an Islamic God. I am not, at this time, choosing a specific version of God, but rather I am describing a more general monotheistic God as portrayed more specifically in religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Now it is important, for this argument, to assume that Man has the capacity for free will and the ability to determine his or her own destiny.

There, of course are questions about God's involvement in the workings of Men. More specifically, Why is it that God does not prevent the evil that happens all around us? Why does God do nothing while people are slaughtered and suffer the cruelties of other Men? Hypothetically, if a child is playing on a busy street, would the parent not be morally obligated to stop the child from hurting themselves? In that sense, would God then not be under the same moral obligations to protect us from ourselves?

Firstly, it must be understood that God's lack of intervention is a necessity. For Man's free will to exist, God must remain neutral to all things. If he were to intervene in the workings of Man, free will would no longer exist within Man, and we would be nothing more then slaves to God's will. God's greatest gift to Man was the ability for him to think for himself, and God will never take that away, even if it allows for the existence of evil. Secondly, the example of a parent saving a child by imposing their will, is flawed in the sense that it assumes Men and God are on the same level of morality. But even ignoring that, we must remember that all Men have free will. Because of this, one person's desires will come to clash with another person's. This is inevitable. God can not be held responsible for when one person chooses to put their will above another's. Also, let us pretend that it was a child playing in the busy street, but rather a forty year old man who should and does know the dangers of playing on the street. Are the onlookers then held to the same "moral responsibilities" to stop the man? Or rather do they simply shake their heads and say they knew something bad would happen and that he knew better. If that is then the case, it is not a case of morality, but rather knowledge. As long as Men are aware of the consequences of their action, we no longer feel an obligation to protect them from danger. That same argument could then be used for God as well. If he were to hand down a list of actions that are deemed evil or wrong, then there can be no responsibility placed on him when Men chooses to ignore those warnings.