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. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What are you talking about? The argument that there is a problem is the problem of evil. — InPitzotl

Right, and arguments have proponents, which seemed to confuse you here:

What do you mean by "proponents"... proponents of the problem of evil? I don't even know what that means. — InPitzotl

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 — InPitzotl

You know that's not true. I've clearly stated multiple times that The Problem of Evil persists.

The point is consequentialist rights and wrongs are wholly contingent on the results. — 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. — 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.

If the result is not bad neither is anything in the process. — 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. — 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.

The broken eggs would only be bad if the omelette is bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You're advancing severe misunderstandings of consequentialism. — InPitzotl

Negative. The broken eggs (the harm) can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the omelette (the consequences of existence).

It doesn't make sense for a consequentialist God to avoid creating harm or intervene to stop harm, if overall it is not bad. — 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. — InPitzotl

AGAIN, people gaining at the expense of others is not the same as everyone infinitely benefiting.

Right, and arguments have proponents, which seemed to confuse you here — Down The Rabbit Hole

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.

You know that's not true. I've clearly stated multiple times that The Problem of Evil persists. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yeah, about that?

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. — 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.

A) 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. B) In either case there is no bad for an omnibenevolent god to care about. — 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.

Negative. The broken eggs (the harm) can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the omelette (the consequences of existence). — 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.

AGAIN, people gaining at the expense of others is not the same as everyone infinitely benefiting. — 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).

Negative. The broken eggs (the harm) can only be judged as good or bad by virtue of the omelette (the consequences of existence). — Down The Rabbit Hole

Consequentialism judges morality of actions. Omelettes are not an action. — InPitzotl

No, the omelette is the consequences in the analogy. God's actions brought about the consequences.

You will always end up with infinite good when adding the eternity of good in the afterlife to any finite evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole

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?)

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. — Down The Rabbit Hole

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.

You will always end up with infinite good when adding the eternity of good in the afterlife to any finite evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole

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?) — 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.

No, the omelette is the consequences in the analogy. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Both the broken eggs and the omelette are consequences.

God's actions brought about the consequences.

Which includes both the omelette and the breaking of eggs.

If good and bad can only be judged by the end result, the suffering is not actually bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's not consequentialism. This is:

Consequentialism is defined as "the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences". — 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.

No, I'm not conviced either way on a god or afterlife and it would take something significant to shift me from agnosticism — Down The Rabbit Hole

Me neither. Only that I don't (need to) put on my head a hat with a label "agnostic". :grin:

I think if a god does exist it would have to be uncaring — 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.

I concede you are right. — Down The Rabbit Hole

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?

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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?

I'm rather intrigued, puzzled, and wonderstruck by how evil and justice seem to be mirror images. Suppose I, god forbid, torture and kill someone. Justice, the ancient kind, the eye for an eye strain, would require me to be also tortured and killed in, preferably, the exact same way . Torture & Kill = Evil = Justice.

: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.

This response will only work for people who already accept that there is an afterlife which is filled of infinite goodness.