If there is physical proof of God then there would be no choice. Free will is the most important part of our existence, because what I understand is that we must choose to love correctly in order for us to have the salvation that such beliefs are supposed to bring about.
This is a very common claim. Greta Christina offers a response that I can't improve on.
“God can’t reveal himself to us clearly,” this argument goes, “because he wants us to have free will. We have to be free to believe in him or not. If he revealed his presence to us, we’d be forced to believe in him — and our free will is a precious gift. It’s what makes us God’s unique creation.”
It’s a really, really bad argument.
I’m going to dismantle it today.
Imagine you’re on a jury. You’re asked to decide whether something is or is not real, whether it did or did not happen: whether the accused stole the diamonds, or set fire to their warehouse for the insurance, or shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. The prosecution doesn’t offer much evidence at the trial — it’s all circumstantial at best, third-hand hearsay at worst, with excessive appeals to emotion and fear, and arguments based on faulty logic. So you decide to acquit.
And then, after you’ve reached your verdict, you’re told there’s a videotape, clearly showing the accused committing the crime.
You’re baffled. You’re outraged. You confront the prosecutor in the hallway, and ask, “Why didn’t you show us this evidence at the trial? Why show it to us now — when it’s too late to do anything about it?”
And the prosecutor replies, “Because you had to be free to decide for yourself. If we gave you that videotape, it would have made your choice too obvious. Free will is a precious gift, a crucial component of the justice system — and in order for the jury to have free will, we can’t make the right verdict too obvious. That would have forced your hand.”
Would you nod your head sagely in agreement? Would you think that was a sound and reasonable explanation?
Or would you think they were out of their gourd?
And if you’d think this was a ridiculous and outrageous explanation from the prosecutor — then why on earth would you think it’s a good argument when it comes to God?