An answer to The Problem of Evil
You will always end up with infinite good when adding the eternity of good in the afterlife to any finite evil.
Ex.
-10 + infinite good = infinite good
-157 + infinite good = infinite good
-258958 + infinite good = infinite good
-999999999999999 + infinite good = .....
Ex.
-10 + infinite good = infinite good
-157 + infinite good = infinite good
-258958 + infinite good = infinite good
-999999999999999 + infinite good = .....
Comments (77)
I assert the following:
1. Not all marbles in bag A are white.
2. Bag A has more black marbles in it than bag B.
Now, what we talking about?
And besides, if God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be any negative numbers at all.
Your example is not comparable as the black marble does not have an inverse relationship to the white marbles. A proper example would be, a finite amount of fire however large will always be put out by an infinite amount of water.
The finite evil (fire) in the world will always be put out by the eternal good (water) in the afterlife.
How many puppy births undoes a puppy murder?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Still doesn't work for me. If a single puppy is burned in a house fire, telling me you have an infinite amount of water doesn't make up for it. The amount of water you have is irrelevant; your water does no good unless it puts out the fire before the puppy is harmed.
At least one puppy has died in a house fire. An infinite amount of water doesn't undo the puppy death.
Incidentally, the error you make in your original post is the confusion between some infinite sum of something and "all". The problem of evil is staged with an entity that has the three omni's. A single harmed puppy is all you need to contradict the omni's. That harm can be prevented if the entity is omniscient and omnipotent. The harm should not exist if that same entity is omnibenevolent.
Quoting Hello Human
For me good would be positive subjective experience such as happiness, pleasure etc. And the evil would be negative subjective experience such as pain, suffering, and even boredom and discomfort.
Quoting Hello Human
Quoting khaled
Yes, this was my answer to the Arguments Against God thread: "How can a good god condemn people to infinite suffering in hell for finite offence/s. Infinite punishment will always exceed just punishment for finite offence/s".
Quoting khaled
I take it you agree with the principle that good can more than make up for the bad? For example getting surgery, competing in a boxing match, working hard - you get the picture.
Do you not agree that no matter how much finite suffering you experience, the eternal good of the afterlife will not only always make up for it, it will make up for it to the same degree as if you experienced no finite suffering. You will always experience a net infinite good.
You need to establish that there is such a thing as an 'afterlife'. After that you need to establish that it is eternal and what ratio of good/bad would be experienced, if any.
Sure. But also that it’s better not to do any bad that you have to make up for in the first place
Quoting InPitzotl
Again, not comparable, as I am talking about individuals experiencing good that outweighs their bad, and not individuals experiencing good that outweighs other's bad.
As I have discussed with @khaled good can more than make up for the bad. In the case of the eternal good of the afterlife, infinitely so.
I'm not sure this is sinking in, so let's spell this out for you. You are presuming to address The Problem of Evil; that phrase, "The Problem of Evil", appears in the topic of this thread. My charge against your presumed answer to The Problem of Evil is that it is an irrelevancy with respect to The Problem of Evil.
So when you say "I am talking about individuals experiencing good that outweighs their bad", that's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't address my charge. It's still irrelevant. If there was one single puppy that burned in one single house, in all eternity, then The Problem of Evil applies, because that one single puppy should not have burned in that one single house in all eternity. If an entity is all knowing, all powerful, and all good, that one single puppy would not have been harmed. Even if we add an infinite amount of infinitely long lived infinitely happy puppies, and that one puppy burned in that one house in all of eternity, then we still have the same problem of evil; it's great that this is "made up for", but why did that one puppy have to get harmed?
That the infinite number of eternal puppies "make up for" the burned puppy is irrelevant even if it does in fact do so, because "make up for" is not the same as erasing. That one single puppy was harmed when there should not be any harmed is the problem.
If that puppy that burned in a house received an eternity of bliss would this make up for it? If your answer is no, is this because the suffering it experienced burning it the house would still have happened, it cannot be erased?
Quoting khaled
Good points, but makes a stronger case for AN arguments :razz:.
Also, why an infinite amount of good?
Lastly, why is evil a problem? Why not the problem with good?
There is no dark without light, nor light without dark. The contrast is what creates the assignment of value.
The answer doesn't matter. To demonstrate its irrelevance, I'll happily grant it's made up for. In fact, I'll lower the bar tremendously more... I'll grant for the sake of argument that all you need is another puppy to be born, and you made up for it. This grants us a simple numbering scheme summation very similar to your OP; e.g., you're doing this:
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
...and I'm granting this:
-1 + 1 = 0
So there you have it. We made up for the puppy murder with a single puppy birth. The problem here is not the 0 term on the right hand side; it's the -1 term on the left hand side. Add another puppy birth:
-1 + 2 = 1
...and you net positive. That's good, right? Maybe, I'll grant that it's good. But what I'm granting is that the 1 on the right hand side is good. The problem is the same problem... it's not the 1 on the right, it's the -1 term on the left.
-1 + infinity = infinity
...and now it's infinitely good! Okay, I'll grant that. There's an infinity term on the right. There's also an infinity term on the left. But there's still a problem... the -1 term on the left.
The Problem of Evil is not about your sum; it's about the existence of harm at all. The three omni's are inconsistent with there being any negative terms on the left.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Again, you're asking the wrong question. "If your answer is no" demonstrates a misunderstanding of the problem; e.g., I'm granting it is indeed made up for, and you still have the problem. But, yes, it's a problem because "making up" for the negative term doesn't erase it.
Let's add terms:
N + M = T
...and say that N=-1, M=infinity, and T=infinity; i.e., this is the same as above, but we're just giving it labels. What you're asking about is what your "make up for it term" M "adds up to" T. But the problem I'm pointing to is the existence of the negative term N. The problem of evil is about N being there. My point about erasure is that adding your M term doesn't eliminate the problem... the N term. You're treating it as if it does, because you're focusing on the T term on the right... the sum. But the problem of evil is about why there are N terms.
The key difference is that God can will that there be no suffering and so if he chooses to let there be suffering he is immoral.
A parent cannot will that there be no suffering. Whether they have children or not, there are consequences to both decisions.
Also the slew of other arguments that you refuse to really address while coming up with excuses as to why you’re not addressing them. Like “you’re aggravating” followed by a pointless jab on a completely unrelated thread that doesn’t relate to the OP in any way.
At least be consistent. Don’t at one moment pretend to be the poor victim of the evil Isaac-Khaled complex and then the next do the exact thing you hate about this Isaac-Khaled complex….
Quoting schopenhauer1
If one believes no amount of good can make up for the bad. What arguments are left for natalism?
Quoting Book273
It is a common argument that an all-loving all-powerful god is not compatible with the evils we find in the world e.g. people ravaged by disease, people beaten and tortured. These experiences are limited (finite) in intensity and duration.
The problem of evil still remains in my view, bearing in mind the eternal suffering in hell can never be just, and animals that experience suffering that can never be made up for in the afterlife. The OP just provides an answer to the common examples of The Problem of Evil.
The eternal (infinite) good exists in the afterlife according to the holy texts of the primary religions. I don't believe in the afterlife, but it would not be fair to use the common examples of The Problem of Evil as evidence against an all-loving all-powerful god when they are always infinitely made up for.
I don't think my argument requires the view that evil is a problem over good. In any event, it is my subjective view that evil is a problem, and good is not, and it is almost everybody's subjective view.
This argument precludes the concept of learning beyond a single lifetime, which is a self-defeating position for anyone that also believes in an afterlife.
All experiences result in learning and therefore could be viewed as a positive experience when viewed from a long term perspective. From this perspective, evil, as defined, would become good, as it increases the knowledge and experience of those affected, in turn supporting the all-loving, all-powerful God that allows these to occur.
One of them is declaring that evil is a sin, and against God. In that case, why would God allow evil at all? Its a contradiction. It doesn't matter if you compare a limited amount of time to the infinite afterlife.
A perfectly good, being that can do absolutely anything just wouldn't create evil.
Of course, if you change it to mean, "God is the most powerful, most knowledgeable and most omniscient being possible in existence," then the problem of evil disappears. In that case God has limitations, and if God has limitiations, its understandable why evil is in the world, and God asks people not to commit it.
So you're saying that (1) even though the evil would be made up for with the infinite good of the afterlife, the evil still existed (2) which is incompatible with an all-powerful all-loving god?
I don't think 2 follows from 1.
-Good and evil
-Good and bad
-Right and wrong
are 3 different things
Good/evil and right/wrong pertain to human behavior and nothing more.
Good/bad is basically just labels we stick on anything we associate to pleasure or pain.
Yes.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Who says 2 follows from 1?
That evil's existence is incompatible with the three omni's is the problem of evil. The problem of evil doesn't derive the incompatibility from 1; it derives the incompatibility from the three omni's.
The incompatibility is based on the notion that an omnibenevolent being would not allow the harm, that being omniscient he would know about it, and being omnipotent he could prevent it. So the harm should not exist if such a being existed. That the harm exists suggests a failure of at least one of those three omni's.
As Epicurus argued:
Is your argument effectively the same as @InPitzotl's?
Quoting InPitzotl
I think it's perfectly benevolent to allow harm that for all practical purposes will not have existed. The subject of the harm will have the same net experience as those that would not have been subjected to any harm.
This sounds like excusing away the problem of evil, not dealing with it.
I don't quite see the difference in saying the evil will not have existed "for all practical purposes" and conceding that the being is merely "for all practical purposes" omnibenevolent (aka, isn't omnibenevolent).
Incidentally, my primary argument is that this is the problem of evil, and that you are not dealing with it.
Quoting InPitzotl
I said that "harm" will not have existed for all practical purposes. I wouldn't call things evil if they have no practical application.
Suffering remains as suffering even if we find ourselves in a good place. And the existence of God is not compatible with the evils we live with. It's as simple as that. Even if there's a cookie at the end of the trial, the trial itself can still be cruel and unusual.
You accept that good can make up for the bad? In the case of the eternal good of the afterlife, infinitely so?
I don't think we can call things evil if overall they are not a bad thing.
Yes but what bothers me is why this particular arrangement?
I understand your point: finite evil but infinite good. :sweat:
Why not, No evil but finite good? :grin:
Quoting TheMadFool
The arbitrariness of it?
Your proposed alternative "No evil but finite good" is explained away by the all-loving god wanting what's best for us, and a net infinite good is better than a net finite good.
Why have "bad" (not really bad if infinitely made up for) at all? The religions have a multitude of answers, from god testing our faith to it being a consequence of free will. If these reasons fail, an all-loving god has to pick or allow either (a) no finite bad to be cancelled out by the good (b) finite bad that is cancelled out by the good, and as there is no reason to prefer "a" or "b", god acts completely reasonably in picking at random or letting what will be, be.
It's complicated, huh? :kiss:
If you take (b) and delete the bad you get (b+), which is better than (b), thus God could never choose (b).
That is the very thing I am disagreeing with.
The idea of an infinite reward after death simply does not make up for living a life of absurd and cruel suffering. Mortal life remains absurd, cruel, and incompatible with a God. Perhaps the afterlife is different, but who cares? I have a life to live now, and it's not related to an after life.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting SolarWind
Why is "b+" better than "b"?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting Moliere
A better life can't make up for all the hard work in getting there?
Quoting Cheshire
God and heaven exists outside of this universe, so they say.
If you have a sum of positive and negative numbers and you change the negative numbers to zero, the sum grows. Simple mathematics.
I am of the opinion that untreated leukemia in children, as an example, leading to excruciatingly painful deaths for what are clearly innocent people to all people of right mind simply does not make sense in a world where there is a God who can stop that from happening, even if there's a cookie at the end of the pain.
In short, if there's a God, he's one sick fuck.
Blaise Pascal's argument? Employing decision theory, I presume? If so, do you accept the reductio? If we allow decision theory to extend to infinite utilities, then no matter what we do it will result in equal utility (i.e., all utilities cash out at infinite). If we plot out the utilities in a column with infinite values as if such values are quantifiable (as if infinity represents an actual number), then any probability we enter into the decision table would be equal. For example, if we are presented with two probabilistic options with infinite values: either option 1, an infinite value with a 99% probability; or option 2, an infinite value with a .000001% probability. Since 99% of infinity = infinity and .000001% of infinity = infinity, then each option becomes pragmatically equal. To provide a more concrete example, this would mean that any utility with a finite value would be equivalent to any disutility with a likewise finite value. Stepping on a stonefish once a day for each day you have been alive would be equivalent to enjoying your favorite beverages any time you wish throughout your life, for instance.
Moreover, its also important to specify which kind of infinity you are operating with here: actual or potential? We have already explored the logical absurdity with regards to actual infinite values. If not sold just yet, then just imagine two infinite sets of units (A and B). If each set contains an actual infinite amount of units, then both sets are exactly the same size if and only if every unit of set (A) can meet one to one correspondence with every unit of set (B) insomuch that no unit of set (B) remains uncorrelated. This means that a set containing every natural number (A) would be equal to a set containing only the squares of every natural number (B) since both sets are beginningless (actual infinite sets), thus have equal units. However, intuitively, since one of them (B) is a proper subset of the other (A), it appears to be smaller than the other.
Although set (B), being a proper subset of set (A), appears to be smaller than set (A), they are actually equivalent to one another. This is because the units in an actual infinite exist simultaneously, eternally, and with no causal or temporal beginning or end. This is analogous to a clock with an (actual) infinite amount of segments that exist simultaneously, endlessly and beginninglessly. Whereas a potential infinite is a temporal series of events containing a finite quantity of segments which are consistent with causality. This is analogous to a clock with a finite amount of segments being divided by half over a (potentially) infinite duration of time. Potential infinites are simply a non-terminating process of sequential addition or subtraction with each sequence rendering a finite result in a finite amount of steps, and thus such sets are quantitatively limited.
Still we are admittedly left with the intuitive assumption begging the question that a set always has more segments than its proper subsets even if the sets are infinite. Infinites simply do not work the same as real numbers and therefore decision theory renders incoherency, so it seems.
Quoting SolarWind
Grows to more than infinity?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting Moliere
It does seem intuitive that a good-god would not allow this, but the logic and math show otherwise.
As long as you accept that good can make up for the bad, for example a better life can make up for all the hard work in getting there, it's just a question of how much, and the infinite good of the afterlife will always make up for any finite suffering.
This infinity is never reached because it is only a potential infinity. We cannot be in the moment of "infinity" and therefore never have experienced infinite happiness.
Not even close. In fact, if I accept your criteria, there is literally no limit to the amount of evil a being could commit while you're still calling the being omnibenevolent:
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
-10^15 + infinite = ...
-10^15 - 1 + infinite = ...
...
-1 + 2 + -1 + 2 + -1 + 2 + ... = ...
And it's absurd. An all truthful being apparently can tell lies using this formula. An all spotless being can have spots. An all x being can have arbitrarily large non-x. No mathematician would accept this. All x doesn't mean an infinite amount of x; it means there is no non-x.
We don't have logic and math here supporting your theory; we simply have a confused poster distracting himself with a sum into thinking that things he concede exists don't. If Johnny has four apples, and you give him an infinite number of oranges, Johnny still has four apples.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
=
all good, except for those 10 times = not all good
all good, except for those 157 times = not all good
all good, except for those 258958 times = not all good
all good, except for those 999999999999999 times = not all good
I do not.
It is similar to Pascal's Wager as far as the impact of adding infinities.
For the math to get you there you do first have to accept that "good" can make up for the "bad". I gave the example of a good life making up for the hard work in getting there, and hypothetical examples can demonstrate this even better, such as millions of pounds making up for a pinch on the arm.
Once it is accepted that the "good" can make up for the "bad" it's just about getting enough "good" to make up for the "bad" of life. Infinity will always do the job.
The afterlife is a potential infinite, as it progresses towards infinity rather than the infinity actually existing.
Quoting SolarWind
All that matters is the good goes on forever.
Quoting InPitzotl
You are effectively saying things are intrinsically bad. I think when most people give standard examples of The Problem of Evil, they are talking about the practical badness as opposed to a technical "badness".
Nope. Reread my posts. I'm abstracting out what bad means greatly. "Puppy murder" and "puppy births" are essentially metasyntactic variables.
I'm not relying on any sort of evil being intrinsic. The POE abstractly is simply what Epicurus was talking about in that translated quote I gave earlier, which I'll repeat here:
I'm directly replying to your notion that the logic and the math supports you. Your logic and math is given in the first post. Evil here is simply being treated as a thing that comes in units; Johnny's 4 apples is your 157 evils as in this:
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Good here is being treated per your op as another thing that also comes in units; Johnny's infinite oranges (as in that same equation). You're so called logic and math is the absurdity that because:
-4 + infinity = infinity
...it follows that Johnny has no apples. And it obviously does not follow that Johnny has no apples.
Is this not your logic and math?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Googling for "practical badness" and "technical badness" gives me 287 hits. I'm 99% sure these are personal terms you just made up. Care to define them?
As for "most people", it doesn't stick. There are a lot of people in this thread who think you're in the wrong. Epicurus's presentation of the POE is canonical and sounds nothing like what you are describing. We're discussing the problem Epicurus raised over 2 millennia ago.
To summarize
...insofar as your presentation of the POE:
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
...does not map to what Epicurus is talking about:
...it is not talking about the problem of evil.
As for those 157 anythings-in-your-157-term-in-your-equation-in-your-op, each of those things is an Epicurusian "evil", as in "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?".
If you suffer 1 year and are happy for 9 years, then you have 10% suffering.
If you suffer for 1 year and are happy for 99 years, then you have 1% suffering.
If you suffer for 1 year and are happy for 999 years, then you have 0.1% suffering.
It never becomes 0, only in the limit.
But if you have never suffered, it is always 0%.
That is because you are not an omnibenevolent being. An all benevolent and omniscient being would not round the numbers. Zero evil is the only thing an all benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being could tolerate.
The only way the problem of evil makes sense is if God is limited in some way.
Quoting SolarWind
My case is built upon the premise that the good can make up for the "bad". The suffering for all intents and purposes will not exist.
Quoting Philosophim
My case is built upon the premise that the good will infinitely make up for the "bad". Thus the "bad" won't really be bad for those experiencing it.
Are you saying the good cannot make up for the bad? Or are you making the same point as @InPitzotl that even if the "bad" can be made up for it still technically exists?
I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying - that even if the bad is made up for, it still technically exists?
I think where we disagree is you would call things bad or evil even if the subjects that experience them are not left worse off in the grand scheme of things?
This is what I mean by practical badness, badness that leaves the subjects that experience it worse off, as opposed to technical badness, a "badness" that is made up for.
Almost. It's not quite a matter of what I personally would consider bad or evil; this is more what the problem is. The whole point of the problem of evil is to resolve why there are evils in the world at all, given that this is evident, and given that there's a being alleged to have the three omni's.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
This doesn't make sense.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Analogously here, evil is negative. Good is positive. The sum is positive, and that's what you're arguing. But to say that the 157 here isn't evil is analogous to saying that the term there is positive, because the sum is infinite. That makes no sense to me; what gives? Even in your form, those 157 thingies are surely things that have to be made up for, right? Given this model, is this not correct?:
-157 + 156 = -1 = slight evil
-157 + 157 = 0 = neutral
-157 + 158 = 1 = slight good
I don't see how you can say that the evil is "made up for" and also that the evil "doesn't exist", and claim that you're using logic and math here.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
It's not convincing to me. This logic wouldn't work with raw mathematical concepts. I can't just say that -157 is "practially negative" because the sum -157 + 156 is negative, but -157 is "technically negative" because the sum -157 + 158 = 1 is positive. I see no difference in the -157 in the two equations; -157 is -157 is -157, and it's negative.
What I'm trying to point out, is it does not solve the problem of evil. I think I understand where you are coming from. You may be under the impression that if there is evil, God cannot exist. That's not the problem. The problem is an omniscient, omnibenevolent, all powerful God cannot exist.
But lets break down the technicalities to something simple. Imagine that a God existed that could do anything. If it were as good as possible, and we could quantify "goodness", it would create a world in which the greatest amount of goodness could exist. Some people claim that there is a God that can do literally anything and is also perfectly good. The fact that evil exists, is the problem of evil for a God that can do anything.
Your argument does not get around the philosophical problem of evil, because God is introducing some evil, even if there is infinite goodness afterward. A being which could do anything, and is perfectly good, would not allow even the slightest bit of evil in the world. Before you say, "Well maybe God has to for greater good," we already established that this particular God could do ANYTHING. Meaning there is not rule or need for evil to exist at all for the greatest good to be, because God doesn't follow any rules.
The problem of evil is really more a lesson about being careful with your definitions. Definitions that are broad and without limit will run into problems in philosophy. If a God exists, that God may be more powerful than we can comprehend but it cannot do everything. The problem of evil is a contradiction to be learned from, not to be solved.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
I think the Problem of Evil persists, bearing in mind the flipside - the eternal suffering in hell (which is never just punishment for finite offences), and also non-human animals that will not experience the eternal good of heaven to make up for their suffering; and many non-human animals have horrendous lives.
My OP is not meant to completely rebut The Problem of Evil, but just provide an answer to what I think is its strength. I always saw (as I think most proponents do) the strength of The Problem of Evil in showing people being left worse off - in the examples of people being tortured and ravaged by disease, alarmingly so. If the premise that the bad will be made up for is accepted, said people would not be worse off, thus The Problem of Evil is more a technical problem, which I think such defences as the Free Will Defence will have a much easier job in dealing with. I realise very few people will agree with me that the horrifying "evils" of life would be made up for, and that's what I wanted to address.
Quoting InPitzotl
In the grand scheme of things none of it is really bad or evil as people are not left worse off. The negative numbers are needed for the math (to show the conclusion that none of the subjects would be worse off), and I use the terms "bad" and "evil" in the same spirit.
To be honest, neither of us really knows if an all-good god would care about technical "evils". Maybe it would have more sense than that?
What do you mean by "proponents"... proponents of the problem of evil? I don't even know what that means.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Again, it doesn't matter. Assume infinite puppy births, but one puppy murder. Why was there a puppy murder? If the gods allowed it, they are not omnibenevolent. If the gods couldn't prevent it, they are not omnipotent. If the gods didn't know, they are not omniscient. Note that the infinite puppy birth assumption here is completely irrelevant to the problem.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Again, in your OP you explicitly have a mathematical model of how this works. Translating your above claim into its mathematical analog, you're trying to pitch to me that in the infinite sum, none of the terms are really negative, as the sum is positive. I find that mathematical translation dubious. So if your claim doesn't work in your own analog, why should anyone be compelled to agree with it?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Sorry, I don't see the honesty you're referring to. If a being has the power to prevent evil, but does not exercise that power, said being is ipso facto, definitionally, disqualified from holding the label omnibenevolent.
From my perspective, you're asking me to simultaneously forgo all qualifications I hold for the label omnibenevolent, and to apply that term anyway to a god for some reason. That ask is a non-starter. As for addressing the problem of evil, this is more reminiscent of just pretending there isn't a problem than solving it.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
Yes, those that advocate The Problem of Evil.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
Your example of puppy births is not fair, as it suggests some gain at the expense of another. This is not the case when all those experiencing the afterlife are infinitely benefiting.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
What I am saying is that an omnibenevolent being may not care about whether a particular instance should be labelled as "bad" if overall nobody experiences net-suffering. Maybe god is a consequentialist, that only cares about the result.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
Maybe that's what it boils down to: you think things are bad, even if the consequences are not? Maybe it's my consequentialism clashing with your moral principles?
There's a mismatch here. To advocate is to recommend or support a position. The Problem of Evil is a problem, not a position.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
What I'm trying to convey to you is that this "being", that being an English word, that you are adding the English adjective "omnibenevolent" to, does not have the "all-good" property as we human English speakers use the terms if said being allows for evil unnecessarily.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
That's not equivalent to what you're proposing, but it doesn't work either. If God's just breaking eggs to make omelettes, the problem would be why it would be necessary to break eggs. If God doesn't care about the broken eggs, God's not omnibenevolent. If God has to break the eggs to make the omelette, God's not omnipotent.
I'm saying nothing different than this, btw: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?"
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Obviously not; see above. Maybe you're just wrong?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
Says you, a proponent of The Problem of Evil.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
Consequentialism is defined as "the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences". If God is a consequentialist, the broken eggs won't be bad, the omelettes are all that can be good or bad.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
That's the exact disagreement we have been having: whether good or bad only apply to the consequences. I'm saying they do, you're saying they don't.
That's meaningless.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
That's a fair definition. But look at it. Consequentialism is defined as a position on the morality of actions; i.e., it is dealing with moral good and moral evils.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Wrong. Consequentialism would be judging the morality of an action, not a product. The action would be making an omelette. Methinks you're confusing moral evils with natural evils or "benefit" or something. (Incidentally, the problem of evil applies to both moral and natural evils).
Metaphorically, breaking eggs would be called a harm in consequentialist analysis. Producing an omelette would be a benefit. And there's still a question of why there needs to be any harm at all, which you are completely dodging. An all powerful being need not break eggs to make an omelette. So why do any eggs ever get broken? That's the problem of evil, and that's the question you're dodging, not answering.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
No, the exact disagreement we have is whether or not you solved the problem of evil. "Good" and "bad", being just words, can be redefined to be anything you like, but defining away a problem is not solving it.
Quoting InPitzotl
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
It means it's no surprise that you insist The Problem of Evil is (as a matter of fact) a problem as opposed to leaving it more humbly as an argument that there is a problem.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
The point is consequentialist rights and wrongs are wholly contingent on the results. If the result is not bad neither is anything in the process.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
The broken eggs would only be bad if the omelette is bad. It doesn't make sense for a consequentialist God to avoid creating harm or intervene to stop harm, if overall it is not bad.
Quoting InPitzotl
The fact we disagree on what should be labelled good and bad, for example due to our different moral foundations, goes to my point that we shouldn't presume what God would deem good and bad.
What are you talking about? The argument that there is a problem is the problem of evil. Incidentally, if there's a definition of humility, I'm pretty sure it applies no more to the random internet guy that solved a 2000+ year old problem by not solving it than it does to the other random internet guy that doesn't buy this because he hasn't heard a real solution.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Right and wrong here are moral judgments. And consequentialism generally works by judging an action as being good if it results in more benefit than harm; or bad if it results in more harm than benefit.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
That does not follow. In fact, the very fact that harm is compared to benefit in consequentialism is a recognition that harm is bad and benefit is good.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
You're advancing severe misunderstandings of consequentialism.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
...if we applied this criteria to humans, nobody would ever accept it. A serial killer who kills 30 people, who works as a doctor to save 50 people, we would judge as a person who does bad things. We would be insane to call such a guy omnibenevolent. Nevertheless, overall, this person saved a net 20 lives. Your argument, however, demands I recognize those 30 murders as not being bad given that a net 20 lives were saved. This is an absurd argument.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
Right, and arguments have proponents, which seemed to confuse you here:
Quoting InPitzotl
Quoting InPitzotl
You know that's not true. I've clearly stated multiple times that The Problem of Evil persists.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
Correct. So if our existence "results in more benefit than harm" that's good, not bad, and if it results in infinitely more benefit than harm, it is infinitely good. In either case there is no bad for an omnibenevolent god to care about.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
No, things can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the consequences. If the consequences are not bad, neither are the things leading to them.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
Negative. The broken eggs (the harm) can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the omelette (the consequences of existence).
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
AGAIN, people gaining at the expense of others is not the same as everyone infinitely benefiting.
Not quite; you still have this mixed up. A theory might have a proponent. The proponent would believe the theory is true; and give arguments for the theory. But an argument is just an argument. Arguments aren't true or false; they're sound or unsound; or valid or invalid.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Yeah, about that?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
...this is one of your times you said the POE persists. But POE, the argument, never mentions hell; it just appeals to the omni's.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
The "so" in A doesn't belong. This is not consequentialism; existence is not an action. B does not follow from A.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Consequentialism judges morality of actions. Omelettes are not an action.
This is one thing you keep confusing. Consequentialism isn't about denying that harm is bad; it's about judging actions. Under consequentialism, a surgeon isn't doing something bad by operating, because despite the harm the surgeon causes, there's an overall good. The harm is still bad; the benefits are still good; the consequentialist simply doesn't judge the action as bad. The action is judged as good because there's more benefit than harm resulting from it.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
It doesn't matter that it's not the same. Insofar as there are differences, they are irrelevant to your argument that there is no bad if overall there is more benefit than harm. Consequentialists, by the way, would judge each killing of this serial killer is bad; because each of those actions cause more harm than good. It would not magically say bad doesn't exist because a net 20 lives were saved. As far as what you're arguing, consequentialism does indeed say this. Omelettes = lives saved, broken eggs = victims. It's not a perfect analogy, since you actually use those broken eggs to make an omelette. But you're not arguing that dependency; you're simply arguing bad does not exist if overall there's more benefit than harm (in stark contrast to consequentialism, which argues that an action is moral if it results in more benefit than harm).
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting InPitzotl
No, the omelette is the consequences in the analogy. God's actions brought about the consequences.
What about the opposite? What if you add the eternity of evil in the afterlife to any finit good?
(BTW, I don't know of any kind of evidence for an eternity of good. Do you?)
If you fully understand what the problem of evil is from my earlier post, then the discussion is done. What you are positing is that God is limited. There is nothing wrong with this. If God is limited, then evil can exist for several reasons.
a. Evil cannot be fully eliminated
b. Evil is necessary for a greater good
c. God is making the best of the situation
d. (Your example) God creates an afterlife of infinite good after you die to make up for the evil you experience while you live.
We can come up for all sorts of reasons how God handles evil and justifications why evil exists if we understand that God is limited. None of these are the problem of evil. There is only an issue if you want to state that God can do anything, is perfectly good, and perfectly omniscient.
If you desire that God is the three omni's, then there is also no further discussion. If God can do anything, he can create a universe of infinite good without any evil. That is inherently better than a world of finite evil with infinite good afterward. This is not debatable.
Your proposal does not solve the problem of evil. Your proposal is a conjecture of how a limited God handles evil in the world, which again, is not actually a problem at all. With a limited God, there is ironically no limit to the proposals of how and why God handles evil in the world, as they are all conjectures. For any of them, the answer is, "Could be", and that's really it.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, I don't think any finite offences deserve infinite suffering, and non-human animals are not supposed to go to heaven, so all of their sufferings won't be made up for. Wild animal suffering is supposed to be particularly bad with the animals getting ravaged by disease, ripped apart by predators, trapped and dying of thirst, and obviously the roughly 160 million animals per day taken to slaughterhouses are not having a picnic either.
No, I'm not convinced either way on a god or afterlife and it would take something significant to shift me from agnosticism. Considering the evils aforesaid, I think if a god does exist it would have to be uncaring.
I should have noticed sooner, but my argument only works from a consequentialist point of view.
If good and bad can only be judged by the end result, the suffering is not actually bad.
If the suffering is not bad, this is perfectly compatible with an omnibenevolent unlimited god.
Both the broken eggs and the omelette are consequences.
Which includes both the omelette and the breaking of eggs.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
That's not consequentialism. This is:
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Your definition doesn't say that good and bad can only be judged by the end result. It says that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.
Consider the following:
Slicing into my body with a knife is bad. A thug on the street that does this while mugging me is committing an evil. A surgeon OTOH doing the same thing to remove a cancerous growth is doing something good. A surgeon serial killer who kills 30 people and saves 50 lives definitely does bad things.
All of the statements made in this paragraph are consistent with consequentialism... the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences. Quite a few of those statements blatantly contradict the notion that good and bad can only be judged by the end result. "Slicing into my body with a knife is bad" is judging something without an end result. "A surgeon serial killer who kills 30 people and saves 50 lives definitely does bad things" is judging people by some means other than the end result. But every moral judgment in that paragraph is judging moral actions based on their consequences; killings of victims are actions with more harm than benefit, stabbing and mugging is more harm than benefit, and removing a cancerous growth is more benefit than harm.
The end result is the ultimate consequence.
Me neither. Only that I don't (need to) put on my head a hat with a label "agnostic". :grin:
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
This is certain. It is so obvious. And it tells a lot. In fact, it is something I use to say as a "mild" way to avoid offencing of or conflicting with opposing sides.
I concede you are right.
At every stage as we progress towards infinity, the earthly suffering we experienced leaves an (increasingly infinitesimal) dent in our net-happiness, that will never completely go away.
All respect. Rare that someone admits that someone else is right. Was a good try, but no one will ever solve the theodicy question.
It's very simple: why aren't we born in heaven right now without any suffering?
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't believe that addresses the issue in question. The problem is with the reductio entailed by the logic. I understand your argument to be something along the lines of: P1) There are positive and negative moral outcomes; P2) a greater sum of positive outcomes over negative outcomes renders an overall outcome with a positive net gain (overall positive outcome); P3) if the sum of the positive outcomes gained is infinite, then all subsequent negative outcomes with finite sums notwithstanding, the overall outcome will necessarily render a positive net gain; P4) the afterlife renders an infinite positive gain; therefore, C) the overall outcome will necessarily render a positive net gain.
I hope that is a fair representation.
Now then, the problem i see with this argument is that it entails an absurdity. Namely, that no matter what negative outcomes are calculated into the equation (e.g. a million pounds or a million pinches on the arm), so long as they are finite (all outcomes in all possible worlds with a < ? sum), they are necessarily render equal outcomes. So, this means a life of endless torture till death is equal to a life of endless bliss till death. This is because ? × 10^999 and ? ÷ 10^999 is exactly the same amount (?). This is essentially making the argument for existential nihilism. Does anything we do matter? is a life of total suffering equally as 'good' as a life of total satisfaction? I hope you are aware of this issue and appreciate the implications it has upon the view.
I was making the case, relying on the eternity of heaven. Which I think @SolarWind has defeated.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
If heaven is actually infinitely good, say for example the good we experience in each moment is unlimited, then we still can't be nihilistic in respect of those going to hell, and non-human animals that don't go to heaven.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
And even if we showed the theist's position to be compatible with suffering, we would still have to prove the theist's position to be true before we built our beliefs and principles upon it.
Is good then defined by the absence of evil?
I suppose many philosophers would have said yes. I like the Gnostic argument that the material world as a whole is simply an accident, but who can say?
:chin: Hmmm.
A nexus, it looks like, between Satan and Justitia. An identity crisis! Are you, Algea, now here before me, inflicting such pain upon me that I now have become a paradox in flesh, life willingly and eagerly welcomes its nemesis, the Grim Reaper, sent to me by Satan or Justitia? Pray tell.