Complaining that atheists are predictable is one of the top 523 dumbest things theists do. Yes, obviously they're predictable, that's because they're right. If you went around saying that two twos are five, it's highly predictable that you'd hear the word "four" a lot.
If what I've said is true so that there are practical causes for suffering and also practical solutions, you'd think a pragmatic rational position would be concerned with that side of things.
Quite so. For example, there are practical causes for diseases, such as bacteria and viruses, practically transmitted by things such as poor sanitation and contaminated water, and addressable by practical solutions such as antibiotics, vaccines, and improved sanitation. People with a pragmatic rational position are concerned with that side of things.
Then there are the impractical irrational solutions, such as prayer, burning witches, animal sacrifice, and blaming the nearest Jew. We tried all that, Faith, it didn't work.
Having come upon God, and realizing who He is, the first question in my mind would be:
Do you not have the ability to prevent evil in our world, or do you just not care enough?
"Free Will" is an answer equivalent to "doesn't care" as evil actions are defined as those that remove the Free Will of innocent people. Preventing the free-will of evil-doers is a much more caring alternative to allowing evil-doers to prevent the free-will of innocent people.
Which is fair enough, I'd just like to know God's stance.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
"Free Will" is an answer equivalent to "doesn't care" as evil actions are defined as those that remove the Free Will of innocent people.
So helmet laws, for example, are evil.
Your definition is not too good.
Sorry, I was trying to keep the point simple and not write an all-encompassing response. Your interpretation of my definition, although viable from the text I provided... is wrong.
What I meant is that all evil actions include the removal of Free Will of innocent people. Therefore, protecting "Free Will" is not a valid defense to allow evil actions to exist. I did not mean to imply that all removals of Free Will of innocent people are defacto evil actions.
Or that evil, bad and unfortunate are not synonyms.
I'm not really concerned about bad or unfortunate stuff. Just evil stuff like the sex trade and harsh slavery and shit like that... people being really evil against other people.
If a God capable of preventing such things exists and chooses not to interfere... well, I wouldn't want to be associated with His morals, anyway.
Unless, of course, He actually has a good answer for the question. Which is why I'd ask it. He is God, right? It's quite possible God has a satisfying answer that we haven't been able to think of or understand yet.
"Preferring free will," however, is a horrible answer. It's quite possible for a horrible, irrational God, sure, but it... um... is left wanting.
1. It values the free will of the evil-doer above that of the victim. And in the more-evil actions, the victim can have the rest of their life's free will removed... as opposed to preventing the evil-doer's free will for a single action. If God really did "prefer free will," then He would prevent the action if He could.
2. It is simply incompatible with any basic moral standard.