Welcome to Gaia! ::

We've had a disagreement in definition, that's what's happened. I meant 'necessary' as the opposite to 'unnecessary', which I meant as 'irrelevent, useless, superfluous'. So what I think I actually meant is that things which are deserved are not unnecessary, but the reason which makes it deserved makes it not irrelevent, useless, or superfluous.
This was probably not a very good use of the word 'necessary'.
I don't think that the argument actually said a lot in the first place, so I think it'd be good to leave it alone now.

1. They're responsible for the choices they make with that control; so the amount of control they have is directly related to the amount of responsibility, now isn't it?
2. They're responsible only if they are in control of their actions. Before you make any more claims presuming free will, would ye mind replying to the argument which I currently have accessible through my sig?

It has not been explained to me. In fact, it's been repeatedly stated without any supporting argument.
Please, explain how 'the law' can be 'widely available to all' and yet there are people who apparently do not have knowledge of 'the law'. Please, explain how infants are aware of 'the law' despite complete lack of any manifestation of this apparent knowledge before being taught it by their parents.

There is that statement again.
For all I can see, they are unaware of God.

You mean I'm aware of the universe which I am perceiving? Okay.

You're right. I have 'rejected' the Bible and the claims of Christianity.
This is not relevent to what we are discussing, though.

Why does God exist rather than not exist?
Why is God one way rather than another?
There is no answer to these things if God is uncaused, because anything which is a determining factor is a cause, anything which is uncaused has no determining factors; it's gotta be random.

In the past, I had expressed the idea of a circular path of time.
However, the problem with this is that there's no reason why the circle as a whole exists, so I don't know.

"every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause."
This would be a workable law, except for the fact that all effects, by definition, are caused. This says nothing of hypothetical events which are not effects.
The article doesn't explain all that much about how God can exist without cause besides saying that God's not a 'material effect'; well, is time itself a material effect? No, so I suppose time must've always existed without cause then!
But, if there's no cause, then... why?

The article's also misinformed on the subject of evolution.

The judicial system does not punish criminals just because they 'deserve' it; which would require that they be morally responsible; the judicial system punishes criminals for specific purposes which require that even unaware law-breakers should be punished.
The judicial system does not punish the 'morally responsible', it punishes threats to society.

1. What occurs is always slightly different from what is intended because we're not omnipotent, so it's inevitable that something will go slightly different from the 'pure intention'.
2. You're only responsible for what you intend because what you intend is the only thing that you cause: Everything else is completely out of your control. You're not responsible for thing which are completely out of your control, because you're irrelevent as far as these occurances are concerned.

As with the judicial system: You must be of an age and mental condition so that you are aware of what is acceptable and unnacceptable to your society before you are charged with crimes. Guilt, as a matter of definition, is "remorseful awareness of having done something wrong".

My eyes are tearing from all that reading. To me all I get is that we don't know how it started, though we claim such and such, nothing is just, even those that claim to be just themselves. Some things are inevitable though we try to think that it isn't. Since we can't escape it, we may as well all go to hell. It's like those impossibly high fares on one suite and the discount rooms of a hotel. Don't reply, I'm not good at quoting quoted quotes quoted from a quote before that that was quoted in tiny parts which also quoted from tiny parts as well from an original argument that may or may not have been quoted from a prior statement.