I have two bags. In bag A, I have an infinite number of white marbles, and one black marble. In bag B, I have an infinite number of white marbles, but no black marbles.

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?

what do you consider infinite good ? If there are people in Hell for an eternity wouldn’t that be infinite evil ?

What about the infinite evil of putting people in hell?

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.

But what about eternal damnation, like when people cut you off in traffic. There's no coming back from that.

Your example is not comparable as the black marble does not have an inverse relationship to the white marbles. — Down The Rabbit Hole

How many puppy births undoes a puppy murder?

The finite evil (fire) in the world will always be put out by the eternal good (water) in the afterlife. — 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.

what do you consider infinite good ? — 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.

If there are people in Hell for an eternity wouldn’t that be infinite evil ? — Hello Human

What about the infinite evil of putting people in hell? — 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".

And besides, if God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be any negative numbers at all. — 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.

I take it you agree with the principle that good can more than make up for the bad — Down The Rabbit Hole

Sure. But also that it’s better not to do any bad that you have to make up for in the first place

How many puppy births undoes a puppy murder? — 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.

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. — Down The Rabbit Hole

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?

And besides, if God was omnibenevolent, there wouldn’t be any negative numbers at all. — khaled

Sure. But also that it’s better not to do any bad that you have to make up for in the first place — khaled

Good points, but makes a stronger case for AN arguments :razz:.

you are operating on a finite amount of evil. Why?

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.

If that puppy that burned in a house received an eternity of bliss would this make up for it? — Down The Rabbit Hole

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:

-10 + infinite good = infinite good — 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.

If your answer is no, is this because the suffering it experienced burning it the house would still have happened, it cannot be erased? — 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.

When you convince others to treat good as evil and evil as good, well, therein lies the real problem. For lack of complication, evil defined as a disregard for others when doing things that when done to yourself would find displeasurable. Or perhaps, some sort of joy or excitement from said activity.

For some reason I had a feeling you’d come here to jab without addressing the OP. Who’s on a “quest” to attack who again? I’m starting to think maybe there is some truth to Isaac calling you a Proselytizer.

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….

Good points, but makes a stronger case for AN arguments — schopenhauer1

If one believes no amount of good can make up for the bad. What arguments are left for natalism?

you are operating on a finite amount of evil. Why?

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. — 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.

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. — Down The Rabbit Hole

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.

Clever, but it doesn't quite work. The problem of evil comes about because of a misuse of terms to describe God. If you describe God as being able to do absolutely anything, and God is supposed to be perfectly good, and perfectly all knowing, you create some problems.

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 in the afterlife to any finite evil. — Down The Rabbit Hole

-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.

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? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes.

I don't think 2 follows from 1. — 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 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? — Epicurus

Is your argument effectively the same as @InPitzotl's?

The incompatibility is based on the notion that an omnibenevolent being would not allow the harm — 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.

I think it's perfectly benevolent to allow harm that for all practical purposes will not have existed. — Down The Rabbit Hole

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.

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). — 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.

I'd say that good and evil do not work like there -- you do not have 5 units of good or 3 units of bad.

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.

You accept that good can make up for the bad? — Down The Rabbit Hole

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:

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: — 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.