The Problem of Pain

[Neopergoss]

*snip*

1) Free Will is a necessary condition of a moral agent (a being capable of moral and immoral actions.) That is why it is important. Whether it is good is another question. I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so I would view it as a good thing.
2) I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so if I have Free Will I would choose to believe in Free Will. (otherwise I would be caused to believe in Free Will from deterministic causes in my life.)
3) I personally view Free Will as the ability to chose between limited options where the choice is independent of outside forces but the options are not.
4) How do you know anything? Some of Philosophy investigates things that do not have known or even knowable answers.
5) As I referenced in 1&2 the leap of faith to believing in Free Will is fairly small. I would assume that the leap of faith to believe in a god is much larger considering god is a less important topic.
6) Why is it highly dubious that god has to make the appearance of nonexistence so people can be virtuous? (voluntarily doing moral acts without any coercion like a visible god would be)

1) I prefer being able to fly, but that doesn't make it true. And just because your morality is defined in a framework involving free will doesn't mean it's the only way to think about right and wrong. You can be responsible for something even if your choice was predetermined.
4) There are necessary assumptions, but free will isn't one of them.
5) You can call it small, but I don't see it that way. It is an assumption based on wishful thinking that is used to support other irrational assumptions (such as theism). You may think life is devoid of meaning without independent choice, but that's not the only way to look at it.
6) That's not what I was referring to (although it is somewhat dubious). What's highly dubious is that the incredible amount of suffering in this world is somehow for the best. The very idea boggles the mind. And you're trying to have it both ways with that statement. If God wanted the appearance of nonexistence, why would he have performed all those miracles back then and made holy books? Either he didn't really do those things, or he's made his existence very visible.

1) I define a Moral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought to do" and an Immoral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought not do". What definition are you referring to? I use Responsible as a synonym for first cause in a chain of events. A predetermined action like a rock that was moving downward through the air hitting the ground is not such a cause.
4) This seems to be a non sequitur. I never claimed Free Will or Determinism as necessary assumptions.
5) I find the leap of faith to Free Will as small as the opposite leap of Faith to Determinism.
6) I agree that reported miracles in the Bible are soft evidence against the belief that the Christian God wishes to hide. Likewise the scarcity of miracles now is soft evidence against the belief that God does not wish to hide.

1) Responsible means you are the one to take the blame if it doesn't go right or to be praised if it does. This can still apply even if you aren't the cause of anything. You are responsible for your own actions even if you aren't the cause of them.
4) It seemed like that's what you were saying -- that in order for there to be any concept of morality we have to assume free will. The alternative is so bad that it's a necessary assumption.
5) We understand enough about chemical reactions, neurons, and the mind-brain connection to very strongly suggest determinism.
6) I see your point here, and I remember believing that myself once. In the primitive past, miracles were necessary, but we've outgrown them. I don't wish to contest the idea. I wish you would address the other point I made in 6) before, which I find more compelling.

[OldTrees]

*snip*

1) Free Will is a necessary condition of a moral agent (a being capable of moral and immoral actions.) That is why it is important. Whether it is good is another question. I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so I would view it as a good thing.
2) I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so if I have Free Will I would choose to believe in Free Will. (otherwise I would be caused to believe in Free Will from deterministic causes in my life.)
3) I personally view Free Will as the ability to chose between limited options where the choice is independent of outside forces but the options are not.
4) How do you know anything? Some of Philosophy investigates things that do not have known or even knowable answers.
5) As I referenced in 1&2 the leap of faith to believing in Free Will is fairly small. I would assume that the leap of faith to believe in a god is much larger considering god is a less important topic.
6) Why is it highly dubious that god has to make the appearance of nonexistence so people can be virtuous? (voluntarily doing moral acts without any coercion like a visible god would be)

1) I prefer being able to fly, but that doesn't make it true. And just because your morality is defined in a framework involving free will doesn't mean it's the only way to think about right and wrong. You can be responsible for something even if your choice was predetermined.
4) There are necessary assumptions, but free will isn't one of them.
5) You can call it small, but I don't see it that way. It is an assumption based on wishful thinking that is used to support other irrational assumptions (such as theism). You may think life is devoid of meaning without independent choice, but that's not the only way to look at it.
6) That's not what I was referring to (although it is somewhat dubious). What's highly dubious is that the incredible amount of suffering in this world is somehow for the best. The very idea boggles the mind. And you're trying to have it both ways with that statement. If God wanted the appearance of nonexistence, why would he have performed all those miracles back then and made holy books? Either he didn't really do those things, or he's made his existence very visible.

1) I define a Moral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought to do" and an Immoral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought not do". What definition are you referring to? I use Responsible as a synonym for first cause in a chain of events. A predetermined action like a rock that was moving downward through the air hitting the ground is not such a cause.
4) This seems to be a non sequitur. I never claimed Free Will or Determinism as necessary assumptions.
5) I find the leap of faith to Free Will as small as the opposite leap of Faith to Determinism.
6) I agree that reported miracles in the Bible are soft evidence against the belief that the Christian God wishes to hide. Likewise the scarcity of miracles now is soft evidence against the belief that God does not wish to hide.

1) Responsible means you are the one to take the blame if it doesn't go right or to be praised if it does. This can still apply even if you aren't the cause of anything. You are responsible for your own actions even if you aren't the cause of them.
4) It seemed like that's what you were saying -- that in order for there to be any concept of morality we have to assume free will. The alternative is so bad that it's a necessary assumption.
5) We understand enough about chemical reactions, neurons, and the mind-brain connection to very strongly suggest determinism.
6) I see your point here, and I remember believing that myself once. In the primitive past, miracles were necessary, but we've outgrown them. I don't wish to contest the idea. I wish you would address the other point I made in 6) before, which I find more compelling.

1) So responsible is defined as who happens to take the blame regardless of their role (or even if they had a role other than being blamed) in the event? I prefer to use the definition: "the entity deserving of blame" which I further defined as the first cause is a chain of causes.
4) I apologize for misrepresentation. I would never claim that determinism is bad. I prefer Free Will to determinism but that does not make me right in that preference. Free Will and Determinism are both valid and reasonable philosophic positions on this topic.
5) Indeed. Science continues to discover more and more evidence for determinism. In the distant past Free Will looked a lot more obvious than Determinism.
6) "What's highly dubious is that the incredible amount of suffering in this world is somehow for the best." Could you provide a reason why it is dubious? (lets assume the hiding god theory)

[Belthus]

Suppose you stumble upon an assassin aiming a sniper rifle at your child. To fight him and stop the assassination would interfere with the assassin's free will, would it not? You would be imposing your will over his and deny him the possibility to choose not to pull the trigger. Thus, in our dealings with others, we must always be passive, lest we interfere with others' free will and their ability to choose the good for themselves.

The options available do not define Free Will, only the ability to choose between the available options.
This does not mean that being passive is not right it just means that it is not necessarily right from the singular premise of Free Will being desirable.

Free will is the only excuse provided so far for the existence of suffering. As you stand behind the assassin and ponder, an omniscient God is there too, simultaneously allowing the assassin to choose to kill your child. And so it is with every act of inflicted suffering chosen by humans. God could stop it yet doesn't. We see clearly that the parent should act to save the child because the welfare of the child is far more important than the free will of the assassin to choose to kill. Yet with God, we give him a pass.

[Belthus]

Consider also the case of natural disasters. Volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, fires, etc. have killed countless numbers of humans and caused untold amounts of nonlethal suffering. An omniscient and benevolent God could prevent this death and suffering and yet does not. The volcano is not a sentient being with free will to be respected. What is the excuse in these cases?

[Astrocyte]

Can we agree that inflicting or allowing unnecessary suffering on others is evil?

Definitely not.

UTAlan, can you elaborate on this?

[Flayne]

Here's my view on things:

I believe that there is an almighty celestial being that controls the universal order.

Have you ever thought about the phrase: What goes around comes around?
well, that phrase couldn't be anymore true.

When you do something in life, there is a consequence, the consequences can be either good or bad for you. perhaps its good for you and bad for someone else.
take a job interview as an example, everything you do, what you say, what you wear, how you express, your movements etc.
All influence the outcome of the interview.
lets say they have to choose between you and another person.
They choose you, due to your acts.
therefore it was good for you but bad for the person who did not get selected.




That is only a tiny aspect of universal order.

When someone acts, I can assure you, It never is always for good. there is always a consequence.

another aspect of universal order is Entropy  , yeah that's right, order in chaos.

When there is a type of system, any system at all that is either unmaintained or maintained wrongly, there is what? Disorganization and problems.
A system cannot run itself, there has to be certain protocols, where if those protocols are not met, there are consequences.

lets say there's a mass producing factory with over 300  workers, there is 5 people that are in charge of supervising and maintaining the machinery.
those 5 people get a bit lazy or do things too quickly, they don't do their job properly.
Then suddenly, something goes wrong with the machinery and it creates a massive rise in pressure (pipes, whatever) and the thing explodes and causes destruction.
maybe an unlucky person got hit in the head by a large pipe that fell from the explosion and got seriously hurt or killed.
Thanks to those 5 people, the factory has shutdown either temporarily or permanently, those 5 people and the other 300 all lose their jobs temporarily or permanently and not just that, but a person got hurt.
why?
because those 5 people didn't think about the consequences, and didn't think that it might affect others as well.

The same applies to
- Governments making decisions to go to war
- Criminals
- etc.

The governments make decisions with which they can only assume the consequences of such.

The criminals do things without considering basic consequences, example:
they purposely kill someone for their own benefits and don't consider that the person they killed was loved by others and the sadness it brings to their parents, family, loved ones.

When I see things like that, It makes my blood boil.
Most of us say Those Criminals are just Evil or Mentally ill.
some of us curse God because he let it happen.

Well consider this scenario:

You are the boss of your business, and you give a person called Bob a job to do, however, he has free will, you can't control him. He may do something stupid and unreasonable, so it brings consequences on you and Bob.
Lets say that Bob gets into an argument with someone else from the company so badly, that he resorts to violence against that person, So he pushes that person, causing them to fall and hit the back of their head on the point-edge of a steel table, causing them to die instantly.

You were the boss, and bob had free will.

Who's fault is it?

The boss who simply gave Bob a job to do? or Bob who pushed that person and caused their death?

Is the Boss evil because that other person died due to Bob's "Free-willed" actions?

Lets scale it up:

The boss = God
Bob = Humanity




Is it really God's fault when a human with free-will causes the death of someone else?
Do you think God is happy when he sees one of his creations die?

Those are the questions you should be considering.

If you gave someone freewill, that means, to do anything they want.
You may not be able to do anything to stop them once you have given it.
Maybe you gave them freewill because you feel sorry for them or you love them, who knows?

As the one that gave Freewill, only YOU know why you gave them freewill.

As the free will giver, You CANNOT intervene with their decisions anymore.

Maybe God regrets giving us freewill.
But then again, True Love is beautiful because it is given out of freewill.
If God Controls us like robots to love him, then there is no point, it's forced love.

In conclusion, I see it this way:


God is loving, not because of the good things he allows.

He is loving and kind because he  Gave us Freewill in the first place.

It is only up to us to decide what we do with our freewill, that was given to us.
If God were to intervene with our decisions in life,
He would go back on his own word and contradict himself.

I see it that way.

Consider also the case of natural disasters. Volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, fires, etc. have killed countless numbers of humans and caused untold amounts of nonlethal suffering. An omniscient and benevolent God could prevent this death and suffering and yet does not. The volcano is not a sentient being with free will to be respected. What is the excuse in these cases?

Remember, Earth and Humans may be God's creation, But Satan is the one that toys with them, Satan is very powerful as well and as God's creation, God won't kill Satan, he can only imprison him as Revelation says, "Seal the beast for 1000 years".
Yes, God has the power to destroy Satan with a flick of his finger.
But as the Creator of Satan, I don't think He would have the heart to do such, not even for the sake of his other creations, Humanity and such.
Think of it as a Father with his Son that misbehaves. and "Seal the beast for 1000 years" as grounding his child and sending them to their room.

[OldTrees]

Suppose you stumble upon an assassin aiming a sniper rifle at your child. To fight him and stop the assassination would interfere with the assassin's free will, would it not? You would be imposing your will over his and deny him the possibility to choose not to pull the trigger. Thus, in our dealings with others, we must always be passive, lest we interfere with others' free will and their ability to choose the good for themselves.

The options available do not define Free Will, only the ability to choose between the available options.
This does not mean that being passive is not right it just means that it is not necessarily right from the singular premise of Free Will being desirable.

Free will is the only excuse provided so far for the existence of suffering. As you stand behind the assassin and ponder, an omniscient God is there too, simultaneously allowing the assassin to choose to kill your child. And so it is with every act of inflicted suffering chosen by humans. God could stop it yet doesn't. We see clearly that the parent should act to save the child because the welfare of the child is far more important than the free will of the assassin to choose to kill. Yet with God, we give him a pass.

Consider also the case of natural disasters. Volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, fires, etc. have killed countless numbers of humans and caused untold amounts of nonlethal suffering. An omniscient and benevolent God could prevent this death and suffering and yet does not. The volcano is not a sentient being with free will to be respected. What is the excuse in these cases?

There is a theory that if people knew that a God existed that they would feel coercion to obey that deity. If god values people voluntarily choosing to be moral without coercion then it might accept natural disasters to protect the greater good of non coerced moral actions.

[Neopergoss]

*snip*

1) Free Will is a necessary condition of a moral agent (a being capable of moral and immoral actions.) That is why it is important. Whether it is good is another question. I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so I would view it as a good thing.
2) I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so if I have Free Will I would choose to believe in Free Will. (otherwise I would be caused to believe in Free Will from deterministic causes in my life.)
3) I personally view Free Will as the ability to chose between limited options where the choice is independent of outside forces but the options are not.
4) How do you know anything? Some of Philosophy investigates things that do not have known or even knowable answers.
5) As I referenced in 1&2 the leap of faith to believing in Free Will is fairly small. I would assume that the leap of faith to believe in a god is much larger considering god is a less important topic.
6) Why is it highly dubious that god has to make the appearance of nonexistence so people can be virtuous? (voluntarily doing moral acts without any coercion like a visible god would be)

1) I prefer being able to fly, but that doesn't make it true. And just because your morality is defined in a framework involving free will doesn't mean it's the only way to think about right and wrong. You can be responsible for something even if your choice was predetermined.
4) There are necessary assumptions, but free will isn't one of them.
5) You can call it small, but I don't see it that way. It is an assumption based on wishful thinking that is used to support other irrational assumptions (such as theism). You may think life is devoid of meaning without independent choice, but that's not the only way to look at it.
6) That's not what I was referring to (although it is somewhat dubious). What's highly dubious is that the incredible amount of suffering in this world is somehow for the best. The very idea boggles the mind. And you're trying to have it both ways with that statement. If God wanted the appearance of nonexistence, why would he have performed all those miracles back then and made holy books? Either he didn't really do those things, or he's made his existence very visible.

1) I define a Moral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought to do" and an Immoral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought not do". What definition are you referring to? I use Responsible as a synonym for first cause in a chain of events. A predetermined action like a rock that was moving downward through the air hitting the ground is not such a cause.
4) This seems to be a non sequitur. I never claimed Free Will or Determinism as necessary assumptions.
5) I find the leap of faith to Free Will as small as the opposite leap of Faith to Determinism.
6) I agree that reported miracles in the Bible are soft evidence against the belief that the Christian God wishes to hide. Likewise the scarcity of miracles now is soft evidence against the belief that God does not wish to hide.

1) Responsible means you are the one to take the blame if it doesn't go right or to be praised if it does. This can still apply even if you aren't the cause of anything. You are responsible for your own actions even if you aren't the cause of them.
4) It seemed like that's what you were saying -- that in order for there to be any concept of morality we have to assume free will. The alternative is so bad that it's a necessary assumption.
5) We understand enough about chemical reactions, neurons, and the mind-brain connection to very strongly suggest determinism.
6) I see your point here, and I remember believing that myself once. In the primitive past, miracles were necessary, but we've outgrown them. I don't wish to contest the idea. I wish you would address the other point I made in 6) before, which I find more compelling.

1) So responsible is defined as who happens to take the blame regardless of their role (or even if they had a role other than being blamed) in the event? I prefer to use the definition: "the entity deserving of blame" which I further defined as the first cause is a chain of causes.
4) I apologize for misrepresentation. I would never claim that determinism is bad. I prefer Free Will to determinism but that does not make me right in that preference. Free Will and Determinism are both valid and reasonable philosophic positions on this topic.
5) Indeed. Science continues to discover more and more evidence for determinism. In the distant past Free Will looked a lot more obvious than Determinism.
6) "What's highly dubious is that the incredible amount of suffering in this world is somehow for the best." Could you provide a reason why it is dubious? (lets assume the hiding god theory)

1) I'm not defining responsibility as who "happens" to take the blame. It's who deserves to take the blame, and there is a structure and order to it built into morality and our moral sense. It doesn't disregard role -- quite the opposite, actually. Just because your role is determined entirely by outside factors doesn't mean you don't still have a role. A sense of responsibility is enough to build morality out of.
4) It's not a question of being valid or reasonable, but of being desirable. When I said the alternative was "bad" I meant that it was very undesirable (according to you). I happen to disagree that the alternative is as bad as you think.
5) Agreed.
6) It is dubious because a far lesser amount of suffering would be sufficient to create extreme doubt of God. It would only have to be noticeable, nothing more. As it is, there are many people who suffer far beyond that point. Of course, I could be wrong as a mortal with limited knowledge, but it's very hard to believe otherwise. As Belthus said, this would mean, for example, that the Holocaust was justified. Really?! I can't even wrap my head around that. I can concede the possibility, but it's exceedingly small.

There is a theory that if people knew that a God existed that they would feel coercion to obey that deity. If god values people voluntarily choosing to be moral without coercion then it might accept natural disasters to protect the greater good of non coerced moral actions.

That sounds like quite a stretch given the extreme nature of natural disasters. The idea that, for example, millions of children are orphaned just so that we won't feel coerced is quite harsh. It certainly defies all conceptions of morality as applied to non-deities.

[QuantumT]

[OldTrees]

*snip*

1) Free Will is a necessary condition of a moral agent (a being capable of moral and immoral actions.) That is why it is important. Whether it is good is another question. I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so I would view it as a good thing.
2) I prefer a moral/immoral world over an amoral world so if I have Free Will I would choose to believe in Free Will. (otherwise I would be caused to believe in Free Will from deterministic causes in my life.)
3) I personally view Free Will as the ability to chose between limited options where the choice is independent of outside forces but the options are not.
4) How do you know anything? Some of Philosophy investigates things that do not have known or even knowable answers.
5) As I referenced in 1&2 the leap of faith to believing in Free Will is fairly small. I would assume that the leap of faith to believe in a god is much larger considering god is a less important topic.
6) Why is it highly dubious that god has to make the appearance of nonexistence so people can be virtuous? (voluntarily doing moral acts without any coercion like a visible god would be)

1) I prefer being able to fly, but that doesn't make it true. And just because your morality is defined in a framework involving free will doesn't mean it's the only way to think about right and wrong. You can be responsible for something even if your choice was predetermined.
4) There are necessary assumptions, but free will isn't one of them.
5) You can call it small, but I don't see it that way. It is an assumption based on wishful thinking that is used to support other irrational assumptions (such as theism). You may think life is devoid of meaning without independent choice, but that's not the only way to look at it.
6) That's not what I was referring to (although it is somewhat dubious). What's highly dubious is that the incredible amount of suffering in this world is somehow for the best. The very idea boggles the mind. And you're trying to have it both ways with that statement. If God wanted the appearance of nonexistence, why would he have performed all those miracles back then and made holy books? Either he didn't really do those things, or he's made his existence very visible.

1) I define a Moral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought to do" and an Immoral Act as "what one could or could not do and ought not do". What definition are you referring to? I use Responsible as a synonym for first cause in a chain of events. A predetermined action like a rock that was moving downward through the air hitting the ground is not such a cause.
4) This seems to be a non sequitur. I never claimed Free Will or Determinism as necessary assumptions.
5) I find the leap of faith to Free Will as small as the opposite leap of Faith to Determinism.
6) I agree that reported miracles in the Bible are soft evidence against the belief that the Christian God wishes to hide. Likewise the scarcity of miracles now is soft evidence against the belief that God does not wish to hide.

1) Responsible means you are the one to take the blame if it doesn't go right or to be praised if it does. This can still apply even if you aren't the cause of anything. You are responsible for your own actions even if you aren't the cause of them.
4) It seemed like that's what you were saying -- that in order for there to be any concept of morality we have to assume free will. The alternative is so bad that it's a necessary assumption.
5) We understand enough about chemical reactions, neurons, and the mind-brain connection to very strongly suggest determinism.
6) I see your point here, and I remember believing that myself once. In the primitive past, miracles were necessary, but we've outgrown them. I don't wish to contest the idea. I wish you would address the other point I made in 6) before, which I find more compelling.

1) So responsible is defined as who happens to take the blame regardless of their role (or even if they had a role other than being blamed) in the event? I prefer to use the definition: "the entity deserving of blame" which I further defined as the first cause is a chain of causes.
4) I apologize for misrepresentation. I would never claim that determinism is bad. I prefer Free Will to determinism but that does not make me right in that preference. Free Will and Determinism are both valid and reasonable philosophic positions on this topic.
5) Indeed. Science continues to discover more and more evidence for determinism. In the distant past Free Will looked a lot more obvious than Determinism.
6) "What's highly dubious is that the incredible amount of suffering in this world is somehow for the best." Could you provide a reason why it is dubious? (lets assume the hiding god theory)

1) I'm not defining responsibility as who "happens" to take the blame. It's who deserves to take the blame, and there is a structure and order to it built into morality and our moral sense. It doesn't disregard role -- quite the opposite, actually. Just because your role is determined entirely by outside factors doesn't mean you don't still have a role. A sense of responsibility is enough to build morality out of.
4) It's not a question of being valid or reasonable, but of being desirable. When I said the alternative was "bad" I meant that it was very undesirable (according to you). I happen to disagree that the alternative is as bad as you think.
5) Agreed.
6) It is dubious because a far lesser amount of suffering would be sufficient to create extreme doubt of God. It would only have to be noticeable, nothing more. As it is, there are many people who suffer far beyond that point. Of course, I could be wrong as a mortal with limited knowledge, but it's very hard to believe otherwise. As Belthus said, this would mean, for example, that the Holocaust was justified. Really?! I can't even wrap my head around that. I can concede the possibility, but it's exceedingly small.

There is a theory that if people knew that a God existed that they would feel coercion to obey that deity. If god values people voluntarily choosing to be moral without coercion then it might accept natural disasters to protect the greater good of non coerced moral actions.

7) That sounds like quite a stretch given the extreme nature of natural disasters. The idea that, for example, millions of children are orphaned just so that we won't feel coerced is quite harsh. It certainly defies all conceptions of morality as applied to non-deities.

1)You are defining responsibility as who deserves blame. What makes the responsible deserving of blame in your theory? I use the original cause as the characteristic that deserves blame. What is your reasoning? (I hope by "sense of responsibility" you were not referring to instinctual instead of a reasoned argument.)
4) So my statement of personal preference was misconstrued as an objective statement? I apologize. When I say "I prefer a moral/immoral reality to an amoral reality" that is akin to me saying "I prefer pasta to potatoes". I do not claim that my preferences deserve any existence beyond being preferences. It was meant to explain why I personally choose to believe in Free Will over Determinism. I did not mean it as persuasive because it is not.
6) Remember, the reasonable doubt would need to be reasonable for everyone not just the well informed skeptics. Does this recalculation change the requisite order of magnitude for you? (I personally find the pain in the world a bit too small for that theory but I often feel it necessary to play devil's advocate on the web)
7) It reminds me of Superman (or some more obscure superheroes). In some books the superheroes are so powerful that they have the capacity to almost prevent all crime and suffering. Often these are accompanied by realizations that mortals are becoming too dependent on these heroes and the hero has to learn when to let the mortals take care of themselves.

[Neopergoss]

1)You are defining responsibility as who deserves blame. What makes the responsible deserving of blame in your theory? I use the original cause as the characteristic that deserves blame. What is your reasoning? (I hope by "sense of responsibility" you were not referring to instinctual instead of a reasoned argument.)
4) So my statement of personal preference was misconstrued as an objective statement? I apologize. When I say "I prefer a moral/immoral reality to an amoral reality" that is akin to me saying "I prefer pasta to potatoes". I do not claim that my preferences deserve any existence beyond being preferences. It was meant to explain why I personally choose to believe in Free Will over Determinism. I did not mean it as persuasive because it is not.
6) Remember, the reasonable doubt would need to be reasonable for everyone not just the well informed skeptics. Does this recalculation change the requisite order of magnitude for you? (I personally find the pain in the world a bit too small for that theory but I often feel it necessary to play devil's advocate on the web)
7) It reminds me of Superman (or some more obscure superheroes). In some books the superheroes are so powerful that they have the capacity to almost prevent all crime and suffering. Often these are accompanied by realizations that mortals are becoming too dependent on these heroes and the hero has to learn when to let the mortals take care of themselves.

1) There are various rules, but the main one is that a person is responsible for their own actions. And sense of responsibility is indeed instinctual but it has a rational basis as well. Morality is instinctual.
4) What I disagree with is your claim that without free will there can be no morality. You'd be hard pressed to find a person so morally depraved that they would prefer an amoral world. Saying that belief in free will is "preferable" because it's the only way to have morality is basically the same as saying it's necessary.
6) So you're saying that the Holocaust was not enough pain to cast doubt on the perfection of this world? I'm not sure what it would take for you. There are people all over the world being tortured and imprisoned indefinitely for no reason at all, but you're saying it's somehow for the greater good? And if you want to use free will as an excuse, well then millions of people are starving to death because of natural disasters, too.
7) We only need a hero to save us because God put us in danger. Superman didn't create the world or the villains or their evil tendencies or natural disasters. He could've made us more independent but instead made us weak and frail and prone to disease and death and evil. We could've still had free will without being evil. Evil could have been a rare aberration in this world but it is in fact quite common. People could be smarter, kinder, less violent, and more civilized. If God created people, he is responsible for their nature, and if God created the world, he is responsible for the cruelty of nature. Isn't that the point you were trying to make above about causes? The idea that this all stemmed from a need to empower humanity or build its character is absurd to me. Evil is like a drug that people become addicted to. Exposure to hardship makes a person meaner, crueler, hostile, defensive, and violent. It feeds into a cycle that makes others the same way. God shouldn't get a free pass -- if anything, he should be held to a higher standard.

[OldTrees]

1)You are defining responsibility as who deserves blame. What makes the responsible deserving of blame in your theory? I use the original cause as the characteristic that deserves blame. What is your reasoning? (I hope by "sense of responsibility" you were not referring to instinctual instead of a reasoned argument.)
4) So my statement of personal preference was misconstrued as an objective statement? I apologize. When I say "I prefer a moral/immoral reality to an amoral reality" that is akin to me saying "I prefer pasta to potatoes". I do not claim that my preferences deserve any existence beyond being preferences. It was meant to explain why I personally choose to believe in Free Will over Determinism. I did not mean it as persuasive because it is not.
6) Remember, the reasonable doubt would need to be reasonable for everyone not just the well informed skeptics. Does this recalculation change the requisite order of magnitude for you? (I personally find the pain in the world a bit too small for that theory but I often feel it necessary to play devil's advocate on the web)
7) It reminds me of Superman (or some more obscure superheroes). In some books the superheroes are so powerful that they have the capacity to almost prevent all crime and suffering. Often these are accompanied by realizations that mortals are becoming too dependent on these heroes and the hero has to learn when to let the mortals take care of themselves.

1) There are various rules, but the main one is that a person is responsible for their own actions. And sense of responsibility is indeed instinctual but it has a rational basis as well. Morality is instinctual.
4) What I disagree with is your claim that without free will there can be no morality. You'd be hard pressed to find a person so morally depraved that they would prefer an amoral world. Saying that belief in free will is "preferable" because it's the only way to have morality is basically the same as saying it's necessary.
6) So you're saying that the Holocaust was not enough pain to cast doubt on the perfection of this world? I'm not sure what it would take for you. There are people all over the world being tortured and imprisoned indefinitely for no reason at all, but you're saying it's somehow for the greater good? And if you want to use free will as an excuse, well then millions of people are starving to death because of natural disasters, too.
7) We only need a hero to save us because God put us in danger. Superman didn't create the world or the villains or their evil tendencies or natural disasters. He could've made us more independent but instead made us weak and frail and prone to disease and death and evil. We could've still had free will without being evil. Evil could have been a rare aberration in this world but it is in fact quite common. People could be smarter, kinder, less violent, and more civilized. If God created people, he is responsible for their nature, and if God created the world, he is responsible for the cruelty of nature. Isn't that the point you were trying to make above about causes? The idea that this all stemmed from a need to empower humanity or build its character is absurd to me. Evil is like a drug that people become addicted to. Exposure to hardship makes a person meaner, crueler, hostile, defensive, and violent. It feeds into a cycle that makes others the same way. God shouldn't get a free pass -- if anything, he should be held to a higher standard.

1) Let me be clear. I want you to prove your point. Give me a logical argument rooted in shared premises that concludes that responsibility can come from a source that is not a first cause. So far you have pointed to opinions that people have about responsibility. Popularity is no sign of validity. The sense of responsibility is an intuitional reaction based on previous societal conditioning. It is not a valid premise.
4) Amorality is not associated with moral depravity. I know a good deal of people that believe in an amoral reality and I can personally vouch for their conduct. Science has discovered no evidence of a valid source for morality and continues to discover natural reasons for our invalid moral assumptions.
6) For me, 1 current genocide was enough. However I recognize that many are not a skeptical as me and to make those people doubt would require a lot more than currently is. I hope you have enough empathy to understand this group of irrational people to which I refer.
7) A god is not assumed in the Superman stories. I was pointing out that all beings capable of ending suffering are held to the same standard not just the ones that caused it. If mortals were able to end the suffering they would be held to the same standard would they not?