Final answer:
The debate over free will suggests that being an automaton or puppet in God's hand implies a lack of human agency, conflicting with existentialist views that define humans by their intrinsic freedom to choose. The presence of evil in the world is regarded by some as a necessary consequence of genuine free will, rather than indicative of a deity's failure to be all-good, all-knowing, and all powerful.
Step-by-step explanation:
If man were given an opportunity to make a choice, then it would be as if he had no will at all, just a mere automaton or puppet in God's hand. This statement touches on the concept of free will, a central theme in philosophical debates. Humans grapple with whether they possess unencumbered free will or if their decisions are influenced by external forces or prior experiences. The feeling of being a puppet in God's hand implies a lack of agency, suggesting that one's actions are predetermined or controlled by divine intervention.
From the existentialist perspective, as seen through the lens of Sartre, humans are condemned to be free; they cannot escape the responsibility that comes with making choices. Freedom, in this view, is intrinsic to human existence, and the idea of being anything less than freely choosing beings - such as automatons - conflicts with the essential nature of humanity. Thus, the presence of free will is not contingent on the lack of influence but rather the capacity to act upon or against such influences.
Some philosophical arguments propose that a deity allowing human beings the ability to choose evil negates the possibility of that deity being all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. However, others argue that free will is a greater good, and that the existence of evil is a regrettable but necessary consequence of genuine free will. The autonomy to choose, whether for good or ill, defines our humanity and opposes the notion of being mere objects or puppets in anyone's hands, divine or otherwise.