There is no possible way god exists unless you believe in utter hate and evil Gary Lindsey Jr

I believe I found four replies in your post. (1) a one year old child cannot have free will to escape a bullet being shot at them. Again, there is a difference between humans having the faculty of free will, and how humans exercise free will. This is similar to: humans have the ability to move their bodies, but where they move will be different; humans have the capacity to have emotions, though which emotions occur will be different; humans have the ability to think, though what beliefs they have will be different. Similarly, humans have the ability to choose, but what they choose will be different. God gives human the ability to choose, so God is responsible for the general category of free will. God does not dictate what people will do with free will. We blame the individual, or praise the individual for what they do with free will. Jane gives a rose to John. John then uses the thorn to cut someone. Do we blame Jane? No. Similarly, God gives a mind to people, some use that mind to argue for God’s existence, others use that mind to argue against God’s existence. God just gives the mind. God certainly isn’t to be blamed/praised for you using your mind to argue against God. Similarly, God isn’t to be blamed/praised for whether a human hurts or helps another with their free will. So, the one year old has the capacity for free will, as does the shooter. The shooter then stole away that child’s ability to act freely for the rest of that child’s life. That is truly sad. The shooter is terrible for doing so. (2) God does not endorse free will Well, most theists disagree with you, so perhaps you are describing a different God again. The Bible is filled with texts stating: ‘Choose you this day who you will serve’ (Joshua 24:15). The Bible is filled with moral exhortations to choose God, choose a good life, etc… The Bible also clearly lays moral responsibility for action at the feet of the individual choosing, since only those who choose to go to heaven will go to heaven. You object: this is a contradiction, since the Bible also talks about pre-destination. Yes, the Bible talks about pre-destination. This is not a contradiction. It just shows that God is complex, and a simple analysis will not get anyone very far. We can get into molinism if you would like. (3) God threatening people with death is taking Free Will away On the contrary, God would not need to threaten people with anything, or promise people anything, if God did not give them the ability to choose. A threat/promise implies the other can choose. Otherwise, God would just do whatever God wanted. So, your argument is self-defeating. Moreover, God is simply pointing out the consequences of their choices, so God is actually trying to increase their chance of choosing to help others (which, I presume you want, since you are so upset about the times when people hurt each other). If I tell a child: ‘if you eat your broccoli, you will be healthy, but if you eat cake all day, you will get fat’, I am not taking their free will away. They can still choose to eat broccoli or cake. I am just informing them of the consequences, so they will make the wise choice. Perhaps you object: God is coercing people into helping others, by threatening them. If so, so does the state, when it passes laws against murder. Are you upset at the state for making laws against murder? If not, why be upset at God for making laws against murder? Does the state take away free will when it passes laws? No, the citizens can still murder each other if they choose. The state just informs them that they will go to prison if they do. Perhaps you think this is still coercion, since now fewer people will murder each other, compelled by the fear of prison, so people are less free to actually carry out murder. Well, good. I’m glad the state does that, and I’m glad God does that. (4) The ten commandments suck. If you want to get into a discussion about process theology, we could. Suffice it to say that the ten commandments were very sophisticated for the time, and relevant to the time. A couple of thousand years later, Jesus points out that love of neighbor is actually the root of these laws. These days, we work out what love of neighbor means in new contexts, guided by the spirit. Consider: you tell a four year old: ‘Do not cross the road without me’. That is a very rudimentary law, and actually makes no sense in the long run. But, for a four year old, that is all they understand, and that law is very good. It keeps them safe. Of course, as they grow up, the child understands the root of the rule is to keep them safe. They learn about cars and driving, and how cars can hit them. Once they are wise enough, the rule is no longer needed, as the general principle of staying safe is all that really matters. You cannot start with the general principle, however, since the four year old will not understand that. So, you are upset at the ten commandments, as if that is the root of morality for theists. It is not. The ten commandments is like the rule given to four year olds. The actual morality is ‘love thy neighbor’, among a few other things. You also linked to a few videos, but that is not your original argument. Feel free to explain the relevant points if you would like. Please let me know if I missed some of your points. I grant that I probably missed some points. I acknowledge that I am used to arguments being presented with clarity and logical structure, with an aim of making the interlocutor understand the points. So, I admit that I am not used to your style, so your arguments have been difficult for me to discern.