donnyton wrote:And I think Matt should stop using that because Satan is never shown to have free will in the first place.
I think the problem is that you might be going about this too logically. Matt's trying to argue from the assumption that the beliefs of the Christian arguer are correct, and the typical Christian who would give the "God can't reveal himself because it would violate our free will" (which, I assume, means "our ability to reject or accept him, because otherwise it's totally
nonsensical) isn't going to agree that Satan is just God's tempting tool. Most evangelicals especially will ascribe to Satan some measure of independence and power, from "good can't exist without evil" to "Satan is the god of this world." For that set of definitions and "facts," I think Matt's argument works fairly well. And if a Christian takes your slant on the argument--God as "author of evil," Satan as his subcontractor (which, I agree, appears to be the more Biblically-supported position)--then they open themselves up to new and more uncomfortable questions.
So, more succinctly:
1. If God revealed his existence with certainty, we would no longer be able to choose whether or not to accept him, which would violate our free will.
2. God doesn't want to violate our free will, so he doesn't reveal himself.
3. But Satan had certain knowledge of God's existence, and was still able to choose not to accept God.
4. So, certain knowledge of God's existence does not violate one's ability to choose to accept or reject God.
If Satan lacks free will, then "free will" must not be "the ability to choose whether or not to accept God," since Satan was able to do that.
If Satan is God's puppet, then we lead right into the Problem of Evil, and God is revealed as a manipulative tyrant.
In any case, the Christian is led to an uncomfortable, unsupportable position.