free will paradox

[Angrboda]

wanting something to be true doesn't make it true. That's just wishful thinking.

And what does believing it do? To you it's wishful thinking, to me it's reality.

Believing something to be true because you have evidence for it being true is one thing, believing something to be true solely because you want it to be true is another. The latter is wishful thinking. Thus the call for your evidence.

In the absence of your producing any evidence, you leave me no choice but to conclude that it is wishful thinking.

your desires in the matter are not evidence one way or the other as to whether there is ultimate justice or not.

Of course not.

Glad to hear it.

So until you either demonstrate the actual existence

And do you realise how fallacious that request is?

Merriam-Webster gives two definitions for the word fallacious. The first, to embody a fallacy. The second, tending to mislead or deceive. Since you obviously mean the latter, I'd have to ask in what way it was either misleading or deceptive. Demonstrating the existence of your god — which was only one of two alternatives suggested — would certainly put tits on the bull. If accusing me of deception and being misleading is your way of shifting the blame for the inadequacy of your evidence or your argument, then I suggest you fuck off. That you have beliefs you can't adequately support is not my problem, and your implying that I'm being unethical by simply revealing that fact is thoroughly loathsome on your part.

The fact that people interpret reality in terms of fairness has deep roots in our nature as a social species

A God given ability, to state the taboo

There's a taboo on God given abilities? That's news to me. I presume you're attempting to imply the argument that our felt need for fairness is explained by the fact that our moral nature has been given to us by god. Since there are two equally viable explanations on the table, simply assuming that your explanation is the correct one without evidence amounts to bare assertion, and that's a fallacy of the former kind, and makes your conclusion a non sequitur (that means your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises, and therefore should neither be believed nor disbelieved).

you need to demonstrate that your god hypothesis explains the facts themselves, not simply that god "could" explain it, that god "seems like a plausible explanation," or even that there doesn't appear to be any other explanation.

God does explain it. That is his purpose, from our perspective. Call it anything you like, there are other ways of describing it. I remain open minded to finding another answer that is so complete.

Since there are (at least) two explanations which equally completely explain the phenomenon, the fact that God does, or more properly, God "would" explain it is not evidence that God is in fact the explanation. That you find the God explanation so compelling is irrelevant. That you prefer the God explanation to all other explanations without specific reasons for discounting those other explanations amounts to special pleading and is yet another fallacy. (And feel free to explain what would make an alternative theory less complete; explanations are either true or false. Different explanations may have greater or lesser explanatory power and/or scope, and greater power or scope are desirable, but neither trait by itself tells us about the likely truth or falsity of the explanation.) That you claim to be open to finding another explanation is betrayed by your obvious unwillingness to consider an alternative simply because it conflicts with what you believe. That's not "being open," that's being dogmatically closed-minded.

So, without assuming the existence of God:

The assumption has to be yours. The belief is mine. Address theology and you'll address the subject.

Since the topic of the thread is free will, which neither needs nor requires any theological assumptions, if you want to bring theology into it, the burden is yours to demonstrate that theology has as much right to sit at the table as naturalistic assumptions. If you're suggesting I am obligated to assume theology, without evidence, before I myself have any right to sit at the table, then you can shove it up your ass.

And again, that you believe something to be true is of little consequence if you don't have sound reasons for believing what you do. Your entire response has been little more than the childish, "I believe it, therefore it's true for me." Who the fuck cares what you believe if you can't produce any compelling reasons for what you believe. We might as well talk about what our favorite color or flavor of ice cream is if you're going to retreat to claiming that your mere preference for believing something to be true is good enough to go unquestioned. And this gets back to your earlier agreement that your desires in the matter are not evidence one way or the other. (You said, "Of course not.") Apparently, you're only willing to pay lip service to that principle when it's convenient, as the rest of your response makes it clear you refuse to apply this maxim to your theological beliefs and assumptions.