If God was were omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be ... any earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, wars, ... — baker

In order to speak about "omnibenevolence" ("unlimited, infinite benevolence"), we must first speak about "benevolence", which is "The quality of being well meaning; kindness" (common definition). This is something that makes sense, and it is real for most of us, since we are all human beings, i.e., entities of the same kind. However, when we start talking about God (or a "god"), we are bringing in an entity that is of a totally different kind and about which we know very little (for a lot, even nothing). How can we then know 1) if what we call "benevolence" exists for God and 2) assuming that it does, what would that mean to Him? In short, how can we know what does God consider as "benevolent"? Because only then we could judge whether everything that happens here, on our miniscule planet, created by God, as most people believe, can be considered "benevolent" or is in accordance with a benevolent plan.

But we don't have to go that far. Here's a more "earthly" example. Quite often, it is necessary to punish children, always in good will, so that they can really undestand the severity of a mistake they made. However, in doing this, we appear to be "mean" to them. Yet, they usually understand later that we did that in good will and it was a correct decision.

:smile:

emotions are the lynchpin of one's philosophy. E — Pop

What???

Emotions, enable experience, and without experience there could be no consciousness. — Pop

Do you mean that if I don't feel anything, I am emotionless, I can't experience anything and/or be conscious (aware) of anything? Do you really believe this?

But, anyway, let's see ... What is this topic about? Ah, yes. "What is Information?" :grin:

John Eriugena brought texts to Aachen in the nick of time before the Vikings (who were "berserk" at the time) destroyed most Irish records. — Fine Doubter

I just checked two sources and they both talk about Christan texts written in Greek. Nothing to do with Ancient Greek texts.
Also, this kind of information is often proven false. For instance, I read in https://talesoftimesforgotten.com that Arabs (mainly) and Jewish scholars have preserved Ancient Greek texts by translating them, etc. I found out later that nothing like that has happened!

, cc.

that morals and morale are what's important to God and not religion. — Fine Doubter

Do you maybe mean "morality"?
(Morale is "the confidence, enthusiasm, and discipline of a person or group at a particular time" (common definition))

Moral Rearmament! :wink: Let's hope it works better this time. — Fine Doubter

"Moral Rearmament" ... That's very interesting! I mean, not the group itself (about the existence of which I had no idea), but that you have very successfully connected what I was taking about with it! :up:
But don't count on it ("to work better this time"). Because it ain't goin' to happen! :grin:

I'm not up to put in action a plan like that — dimosthenis9

I'm not either, of course. For one thing I don't know even where to start from! But, as I said, "I would like to start doing something about that." It's a kind of motivation and certainly a dream! :smile:

Your reasons are quite ... reasonable. And I don't think that not willing to sacrifice oneself or being a hero for any purpose means selfishness. In most cases, it just means "it's not worthwhile".

I m a guy who tries hard to act "good" but at which level of "goodiness" or "badiness" I'm at the end,i have no idea about it. — dimosthenis9

I don't believe that one should "try" to be good. If ethics (I have described elsewhere what this term means to me) are part of one's reality and regular behavior, one usually thinks and acts ethically in a natural, efortless way. That is, most of the time, in general, as a rule.

It is almost exactly what I had in my mind. ... Discussions would be the MAIN agenda basically. — dimosthenis9

So, it's a common vision, then! Well, it's a good start! :smile:

Religions and governments typically are though. — praxis

You mean "Churches" (religious/spiritual leaderships), right?

I don't think that most Greek orthodox Christians are so hardcore — dimosthenis9

You maybe right about that. It's something personal, i.e., it depends on the cases one has encounteredin his life. I personally, avoid to speak about religion or even religious matters with anyone who is deeply religious.

That's really interesting. In fact i double checked that you meant ... — dimosthenis9

Right. I did mean that. "Different 'form' of religion" and "church 'evolution'" are what is needed. And not only this, but they have inspired me a lot, to a point that I would like to start doing something about that. And I had in mind to talk to you about it. I have suddenly realized that you have created a really great topic and that God must indeed be replaced! :grin: This is a huge topic!
(Yet, I am not sure if it "talks" to you as it does to me ...)

But I get enough accusations already and I had decided not to share it here. As you notice some believe that I have a "secret" plan as to create a new dogmatic group. — dimosthenis9

:grin: That's really funny!
But what a coincidance! It's not far from what I have just described. (No docmatic, by any means, though!)

So I was thinking how could religion could be in 100 or 200 years from now. — dimosthenis9

Oh, that's way too long! We have to live to see it happening! :smile:

Behind religions there is a billion dollar business and a huge amount of power that some people have. — dimosthenis9

Remember how I ended my last message? You don't have, I copy-paste it here for you :smile: : ("Religions that teach people a philosophy of life, ethics and principles of moral conduct and their immense importance in life, based on common sense and rational thinking, as well as accompanying real examples and applications in everyday life."
Well, I thought something easier than creating actual "religions" (too complicated). Create "religious groups", which are built around a basic ethics system and a set of priciples, and which will act to support and help each other and other groups or individuals to a better life. A better life for all, in general, physically (materially) and spiritually, always based on common sense. Discussions will also be in the daily agenda! (Well, I have not workded it out well yet. This is just "sketch"! :smile: )

There was big evil around Cyril of Alexandria (involving equivocity in ontology) but I suppose he is just as much eastern as western. — Fine Doubter

Right, Cyril of Alexandria was not with eastern church Most probably not the western either. However, he was contermporary to Theodosius II who in 448 had ordered that all anti-Christian books be burned. I don't know if that included ethnic (pagan) books or just heretical books. But at the period (440–450) there was a massive destruction of Greek monuments, altars and temples. And ea little earlier than that, in 365, with a Judgment, inexhaustible piles of books, all Greek literary, philosophical and scientific books were burned in the squares of the urban centers.

The earlier Irish preserved Greek learning (alongside a few elements outside christendom) — Fine Doubter

Interesting! Maybe during the Middle Ages?

Almost all the western traditions are distorted by ingrained fundamentalism. — Fine Doubter

There you are! That's a word I never use but I recognize it well when I see it! :smile:

Some (eastern adherents) I know of are rediscovering relative authenticity vis-a-vis eastern orthodox and some of them aren't. — Fine Doubter

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but quite a long time ago, I read a book called "Mystic Theology" by a known Greek Orthodox mystic who lived in early 1st c. and I was really amazed. It was so close to the Eastern philosophy! (In fact, some people characterize it as Greek Zen). Guess what. This and other books of his were excluded from the official Greek Orthodox literature by the Church! If more books like that (and other works of the same author) were written, accepted and promoted for study, the whole Christianity would be totally different today!

the most fanatic, hardcore Christian group of all — Alkis Piskas

This "ranking" probably varies with different countries and ethnic heritages — Fine Doubter

I don't know if you have followed the thread. I have cleared in my comments and the information I delivered that they were based on personal experience and historical facts regarding the Greek Othdodox Church, which is the prevailing religion in my country and it is the one that became the dominant religion, since the beginnings of the Byzantine period (Eastern Roman Empire), and tried to destroy whatever remained from the ancient Greek Civilization, with everything that this entails. (Fortunately, the Catholic Church, in the Western Roman Empire, preserved a big part of the history and wisdom of that civilization and even gave it a new birth in the Renaissance. Considering these facts and also the masterpieces created during Renaissance and thereof, show the huge difference in intelligence and spriritual levels between these two Churches and faiths, although they are both Christian! There are no bad religions. There are only bad people who are reqpresenting it (Churches, power) and using it for wrong purposes.)

This is a description of the effects of emotions. Not a description of what emotions are. Emotions are what we feel deep down. — Pop

How does "feel deep down" differ from "experienced as strong feeling" in the definition I brought up? And why "deep down"? Emotions can be very light and subtle and easily felt. But maybe by "deep down" you mean the elements that exist in our subconscious that produce emotions as reactions. Because emotions are reactions. And as such they are always felt (sensed) at the surface, not somewhere deep.

If it was not for emotions all experiences would be the same. — Pop

Experiences do not necessarily produce emotions. "Experience" from Merriam-Webster: "Practical contact with and observation of facts or events.". But as I can see, you don't like dictionnaries much. You prefer creating your own concepts about terms, risking to use baseless descriptions like "deep down" ...

so you will not find them described in a dictionary any time soon. — Pop

You can find anything in a dictionary. Not that dictionaries are faultless or desrcibe something in the best way. But if you cannot find something in a dictionary or you cannot define it yourself better, then you cannot talk about it!

Instead read this Wiki source, and focus on all the different theories of emotion. — Pop

I did. (I also use Wikipedia very often -- sometimes, it's the first reference I use, depending on the subject.) Emotions are biologically-based psychological states brought on by neurophysiological changes, .... It's also a good description. In fact, it is a little better, because the term "state" is more appropriate than "reaction" as far as emotions are concerned.

But what was the initial argument? Ah, yes. "There is no agreement as to what emotions are"! :smile:

I would stress more the average ethical than the intellectual level, which seems to get lower with time
— Alkis Piskas

I know they are different, but don't you think these two are strongly connected also? — dimosthenis9

Yes, certainly they are connected, but intelligence does not imply ethics. Ethics, pure ethics (as a system, a philosophy), on the other hand, imply intelligence, or more precisely, "rationality". (In the same way that intelligence does not imply philosophical thinking, but the other way around is true.) Indeed, I consider ethics strongly related to rationality. (As you can see, I ended my message saying, regarding ethics, "based on common sense and rational thinking" .)

I would put it "to prevent average ethical level from moving down lower! — dimosthenis9

Alright, but this is not so optimistic! :grin:

Theists have more tendency to hate and fight atheists than the other way around.
— Alkis Piskas
I disagree on that. I think depends from the individual. Seems more or less the same to me. — dimosthenis9

Yes, it depends on the individual. And indeed, Christians were persecuted a lot in the beginnings of Christiainism. Also, what I mentioned was mainly based on my experience with and facts about the Greek Orthodoxy, which is the most fanatic, hardcore Christian group of all.

Theists try to convince and convert atheists or be imposed on them, but rarely the other way around.
— Alkis Piskas
Same as above for me. — dimosthenis9

In the religious world I live, it is true. What is your religious "world"?

Are you suggesting a different "form" of religions over future?? Like church "evolution" ? Or got it wrong? — dimosthenis9

No, you have got it right! And you have put it nicely. :smile:

That's exactly what I mean when I support that humanity's average intellectual level, make religions still useful nowadays. — dimosthenis9

This is true, but I would stress more the average ethical than the intellectual level, which seems to get lower with time. And I believe that religion is not only useful but even necessary. Among other things, in order to increase the average ethical level. This in turn will make for a better life for everyone, materially and spiritually. Ethics and rationality produce order. Lack of them produce disorder and chaos.
But, as I will describe below, very little of this is actually applied and it can have a value and purpose only if correctly applied.

***

As far as hypocrisy and differences between atheists and theists are concerned, I can ascertain, mainly from personal experience, the following:

Hypocrisy and immorality exist everywhere, among atheists as among theists.
Theists have more tendency to hate and fight atheists than the other way around.
Theists try to convince and convert atheists or be imposed on them, but rarely the other way around.
Theists show much more contempt and lack of respect towards atheists than the other way around. (Their customs exercised in public, e.g. joining hands around a table in a prayer and citing quotes from Gospels (or Torah, etc.) are classic examples of this, esp. when they do this in front of people of and other faith!)
Theists (in their great majority) believe that their religion is better than other religions and sometimes even that it is the only religion, calling other faiths as infidels! Religious wars are still happening today since the time of Moses. (All this is part of the insanity that religions have and still can create to people, when used as a means of suppresion and domination.) Such things are totally unknown among atheists.
Theists would be in a much better place and much more enviable if they had studied and/or were taught the philosophy, scripts, literature, tenets, beliefs, etc. of their religiion in the right way. In my life, I have known some of them who have done so and I had envied them.
Atheists are more true to themselves and to others than are theists.
Atheists can think and reason for themselves better, based on their own realities, than can theists.
Atheists may not believe in God (or a god), but this doesn't mean they cannot be "religious" (in the sense I explained earlier).

Important note: All of the negative things I mentioned above about theists are not inherent to theism. They happen because of the wrong or even inexistent teaching of the religions, as well as the wrong purpose they have been used for.

***

Back to the question of the topic "What can replace God?", after all this has been said:
Religions that teach people a philosophy of life, ethics and principles of moral conduct and their immense importance in life, based on common sense and rational thinking, as well as accompanying real examples and applications in everyday life.

There is no agreement as to what emotions are. — Pop

This is where dictionaries come in handy! :smile:
"Emotion" from Merriam-Webster (First definition): "A conscious mental reaction (such as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body"
(Stresses are mine. But disctionaries are not faultless: the phrase "in the body" at the end is not only redundant (since it is implied by "physiological") but also wrongly connected to the word "behavioral" (since behaviour is normally related to the mind and the human being iself).)

Classic example: it is a common fact that fear/stress increases heart rate and adrenaline, that hormones are released by anger, etc.

I don't judge if their solution is right (imo it's not at all).But even with "illusions" , as you say, they still gave some existential answers, to themselves — dimosthenis9

You are right not to judge and I don't either. Besides, in way, we all live in some kind of illusion or other! But I know, from personal experience, that most of them --there are exceptions, of course-- usually don't act in accordance with what they say or believe. They live in a conflict. E.g. they speak about "love", "a loving God", Jesus, etc. but in their life they don't show such traits. In fact, most of them exhibit more hate than love. Then, they expect that God will help them in their problems, but alas! they still suffer. And so on, and so on. This is not solving existential problems! And this is not a judgement but simple observation.

You can tell is someone has solved (most of) his existential problems: he (for brevity) is mostly stable in his behaviour, he acts according to his beliefs and words, he has a solid reality, he is quite rational, etc. And all this, because he has solved his problems by himself and not by using, depending on and believing in some imaginary entity, and/or the Bible, the Churh and in general a religion. Faith is not knowledge and a solution. Faith can only act as "crutch".

Well my fear is that chaos would be even bigger. — dimosthenis9

Yes, this is what I also believe; I only expressed it differently!

I get your point,but for me when I say God I mean religions [->religious] also. — dimosthenis9

Well, as I described above, believing in God (or a "god") does not make someone necessarily religious, in the sense that I descibed above, which is the essence of "religiousness", although dictionaries short-sightedly define the term as "relating to or believing in a religion", i.e. something that has "no bones and flesh" and means very little in terms of human knowledge and behaviour.

As most things in life, it is so simple after all indeed. But as most things in life also, the huge difficulty comes from putting that "plan" in action! — dimosthenis9

Right!

That's exactly what I mean when I support that humanity's average intellectual level, make religions still useful nowadays. — dimosthenis9

I agree. (I think I already did! :smile:)

Cause at least (even with wrong way, imo of course) they have answered to their existential questions! — dimosthenis9

Some may indeed have. They are usually those who have seriously studied their religion and/or have a religious/spiritual guide, usu. a priest. But the great majority, even those who "live by the bible" I believe, have not actually solved anything. They live in an illusory religious world, based on an illusory God. By "illusory God" I mean --and I'm referring speak for the prevailing religion in my country, Greek Orthodoxy-- the God as it is presented by the Church and the vast relevant Greek Orthodox literature, including the school books.

Despite all these religions and Gods, we STILL face a huge chaos in society — dimosthenis9

Exactly. This is the proof that the religion of the masses has never been able to solve any problem, except from a blind obedience to the Word of God, the Church, the 10 commandments, etc. which act as an obstacle to Man's immorality and the excesses that Man is predisposed to, as well as a remedy to his primordial fears. Marx was not wrong stating that "Religion is the opium of the people". It kind of acts as a hypnotic, a drug!

Questions:

1. So are we sure that world would be a better place without religions? — dimosthenis9

It depends what one means by a "better place" and what (kind of) religions one talks about. From a materialistic view, dogmatic religions (such as those I described above) provide some safety and control in a society. From that aspect, I really don't know what this place would be if they didn't exist! What I know is that, because exactly of their dogmatic and suppressive nature, they can't set Man free, neither lift him to a higher spiritual level and real knowledge. But there are a lot of religions, esp. Eastern ones, and most importantly Buddhism which I consider in general a non-dogmatic and "practical" religion, with many "schools", which are not considered "sects" or "heresies" to be fought as it happens with Christianity, and esp. Greek Orthodoxy, which pursues them!

2a. If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? — dimosthenis9

I don't think that God must be replaced by anything, except maybe some Supreme Being, Infinity ... the name doesn't really matter. Because we don't need to speak about God to be religious! And by religious I mean mainly, having 1) spiritual values and views (transcendental knowledge, worldviews) that count more than material ones, and 2) moral values (ethics).

2b. How can you convince people to be "good"? — dimosthenis9

"Good" means ethical (moral) and ethics have to do with behaving for the greater good. This is based on common sense. So, to convince people to be "good", you have to convince them to apply common sense! So, simple? Not at all. Common sense is something so difficult to apply that sometimes I wonder if there is such a thing! :smile: It means thinking and acting rationally. And we know that rationality is not people's cup of tea, and even if they were pursuing it, there is so much (mental) aberration in Man that that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for him to achieve a rational stablity!

"rather than not (to be)"
— Alkis Piskas

... is what I had in mind and my construction got mixed up with "something rather than nothing"! :wink: — Fine Doubter

OK. So I am glad I filled in the hole! :smile:

At any rate I'm finding out things that are very different from what we were usually told in the summaries of summaries. I try to gauge where to spend my money first - not Descartes or Ayer ... — Fine Doubter

Alright, I like this. Quite creative! :up:

we have lost focus (since quite a while ago!) and deviated from the topic, which is about "information", not "dualism"!
— Alkis Piskas

The duality of signs and substance is basic to this question — Wayfarer

I was talking about dualism as a philosophical system!

It may be so

OK

That's an interesting miniature history of philosophy! :smile:

we are on an existence wave in which something has the propensity to be rather than nothing — Fine Doubter

Is there something missing here?
I was expecting something like "rather that not (to be)", "rather than (to) perish", etc.
("rather than", as a conjunction, joins two parallel grammatical constructions; "be" and "nothing" aren't such.)

It would be good if you fix this, because your idea looks like it has a potential but it is left incomplete.

As you can see from the image below, there's only one form of dualism.
— Alkis Piskas
Cartesian dualism is only one form of dualism. It’s quite different to hylomorphic (matter-form) dualism. And there are others — Wayfarer

Yes, I know, but they insignificant, not worthy mentioning and much less considering.
Anyway, we have lost focus (since quite a while ago!) and deviated from the topic, which is about "information", not "dualism"!

I learned there are many reasons why someone grins - grin and bear it! — TheMadFool

OK, :grin: and :meh: it!

Sorry, I'm bad at humor. I used to be a jolly chap until I discoverd fate had other plans for me. — TheMadFool

Please, be a jolly chap again! It's much mor fun! :grin:

Order insofar as my argument is concerned is only a representative of the category of evidence that makes theists go, God! — TheMadFool

OK, I admit I disregarded this. My bad!

Ergo, you're barking up the wrong tree :grin: — TheMadFool

It may well be so! (And I see you got your humor back!)

You seem to be enamored of physics as if physicists are privy to information mathematicians are not — TheMadFool

I am not enamored with physics. On the contrary, I generally dislike physics (school trauma!).
(But I think I have cleared this up a few times, by saying that I'm not good in physics ...)

There is no evidence of an immaterial information anywhere? — Pop

I assume you mean physical evidence. Yes, there is. Emotions are responses in the form of wavelengths (physical) produced by non-material information (e.g. thought).

So I think dualisms is an expansion of monism and monism is an abbreviation of dualism — Mark Nyquist

"In the philosophy of mind, dualism is the theory that the mental and the physical – or mind and body or mind and brain – are, in some sense, radically different kinds of thing."
(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/)

As you can see from the image below, there's only one form of dualism. Monism, on the other hand, can take different forms. Maybe one of them is what you are talking about?

(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dualism-vs-Monism.png)

I used an equals sign to mean 'is the same as'. It's my take on monism and dualism and might not be consistent with traditional meanings. But it's a better model. — Mark Nyquist

I see. OK.

Descartes thought process: — Mark Nyquist

See my above reply.

The equivalent expansion of BRAIN(Mental content) is still entirely physical but brings into view the elements of dualism. — Mark Nyquist

What do you mean by "mental content"? Are you identifying the brain with mind or saying that part of the brain is mind? If this is so, it is in conflict with dualism, according to which body (brain) and mind are separate things. So, do you reject dualism?

Whether Einstein, eh, I mean God, plays dice or not! :grin:
— Alkis Piskas
Irrelevant! — TheMadFool

First of all, I said that jokingly. (Didn't you see the laughing emoji?) Second, it's not that irrelevant as you say, since we are talking about order vs disorder. I remind you that your question was"What exactly is it that you find "debatable" about chaos and order?" Besides, it is you who brought up the concept of "God" in real terms (literally), based on Einstein's statement, altghough, as I mentioned, he used "God" metaphorically.

Anyway, whether God is involved in the order of the universe or not, we have to bring in physics, and in particullar, quantum physics. So, regarding always my "debatable", here is something interesting from Prof. Alan Tennant, who has won the Europhysics Prize:

"Prof. Tennant remarks on the perfect harmony found in quantum uncertainty instead of disorder. ‘Such discoveries are leading physicists to speculate that the quantum, atomic scale world may have its own underlying order. Similar surprises may await researchers in other materials in the quantum critical state.'"
"If there’s an underlying order in the quantum world, that would be a rather significant philosophical shift. So I’m guessing this meaning of this result is going to be rather highly debated."
(https://entangledstates.org/2010/01/09/golden-ratio-observed-in-quantum-states/):

Do you see now what debate I am talking about? However, I can't go further than this, because as I already told you, I have little knowledge of physics.

Physics is (becoming) a branch of mathematics. — TheMadFool

Well, it's my turn now: "Irrelevant!"
(Really, how does this statement relate to anything else in here? Who has said anything about mathematics?)

What exactly is it that you find "debatable" about chaos and order? — TheMadFool

Whether Einstein, eh, I mean God, plays dice or not! :grin:

Note: Maybe physicists know better? I am not good in Physics ... so I can't take part in the debate!

OK

I believe information always has a physical basis, either as frequency or vibration, or the patterning of something. — Pop

You mean the means by which information is transferred and in which it is stored, right? I am referring though to the content of the information.

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.

Non-physical is a tricky concept because it implies non-existence. — Mark Nyquist

It depends on how you interpret the term "existence". In fact, it is mostly used for physical things. And this because science is totally materialistic as most people also are. However, this is only a bias, and a stupid one. Because Ideas exist, numbers exist, and all sort of abtract, non-physical things. If I say "I exist" this doesn't mean that only my body exists. I also exist on a mental, spriritual plane. Hence, dualism, and Descartes' statement "I think therefore I am (exist)".

Your "brain state" approach is quite interesting. However, my remark was just about the existence (as the word is explained above) of non-physical information. Which, it seems that you still deny! But it's OK with me. :smile:

We seem to spend a lot of effort these days on computers and creating artificial intelligence despite a lack of apparent full comprehension of what our own intelligence is made of. — TiredThinker

"Arificial Intelligence" is a figurative name (like, e.g. "Mechanical translation", "Reverse Engineering", etc.) and in no way refers or is related to human intelligence. You are right saying that we don't really know what our own intelligence. But AI, is a scientific term and field, something very concrete, because it is programming. It is made of well defined terms, rules, methods, etc.

What does all this have to do with philosopy?

All this is very nice and I found a lot of good arguments. However, the subject of order vs. randomity in the universe seems quite debatable, as well as how someone perceives one or the other. So I am not going to get involved in it, but only remind us that Einstein has also stated that "God Plays Dice with the Universe" in a letter regading his issues with quantum theory. The context and conditions in which these statements were made were different, of course. But they show the debatability of the subject.

***

P.S. Einstein wasn't referring to a personal god in the quote. He was using "God" as a metaphor. Neither was this an affirmation of destiny.

Information is merely relations between physical entities viewed from our modeling perspective, a distinctly human formal causality. — Pop

Do you mean that there's no non-physical information? What about abstract elements, like numbers, concepts, etc. They cannot be used as information?

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?)