>Even if Leibniz's demonstration that this is the best of all possible worlds were correct, it would still not be a vindication of divine providence. For the Creator created not only the world, he also created possibility itself: therefore he should have created the possibility of a better world than this one.
Refute this
There is a possibility user. It’s just that possibility and reality are different.
based
>t. somehow managed to miss both Leibniz and Schopenhaur's point
If the Creator had created the possibility of a better world, this world would not have been the best possible world, for a world in which exists the possibility of a better one is not the best possible world.
There must be a point in which no greater world can be conceived of. This is the perfect realm which we call heaven. But you're all a bunch of sinners and need the light of Jesus Christ.
I try my best.
you're an idiot who contradicted himself
>he also created possibility itself
Schopenhauer is entertaining, hen writings about daily life but he should really have abstained from these topics. Leibniz actually spends time btfo out this conception, because he felt even Descartes had been semi-compromised on this front.
>the possibility of a better world than this one
But that would in fact be worse
why
Schoppy is the one contraddicting himself.
>therefore he should have created the possibility of a better world than this one.
If that was the case this would not be the best possible world, which was granted in the first part of the argument. This is literally a contradictio in adiecto
Possibility is fulfilled in reality. If a world is possible, it exists.
>many-worlds retardation
no.
not an argument. Also, you’re putting words in my mouth
nah that’s retarded
so does leibniz believe possibility is finite? because thats pretty small brained for such a big brained fella
Also according to Leibniz possibility is not part of Creation, rather, it is immanent to the essence of God.
If something is possible, how could it not happen? I don’t believe in randomness. The casual definition of “possible” is flawed because we don’t know what’s possible until it actually happens.
What do you mean?
>better world
Choco Leibniz >>> Fig Newton
Surely el perfecto creator would be able to create a world without the doubt that it is not the perfect world.
Probably because he does not accept the premise and wants to demonstrate how it is self-contradictory.
Absolute retards. Start your basic epistemology over again.
kek
lets go to the perfect island for vacation user
Is there a number of which no greater number can be conceived?
In God there is infinitude. Because of this our souls shall ascend forever. So God gave us the best possible world because he gives himself to us. This mortal life is like one day in heaven and it was very novel for us.
>I don’t believe in randomness.
you’re wrong then
nah
> According to this doctrine, then, God created out of nothing a weak race prone to sin, in order to give them over to endless torment. And, as a last characteristic, we are told that this God, who prescribes forbearance and forgiveness of every fault, exercises none himself, but does the exact opposite; for a punishment which comes at the end of all things, when the world is over and done with, cannot have for its object either to improve or deter, and is therefore pure vengeance. So that, on this view, the whole race is actually destined to eternal torture and damnation, and created expressly for this end, the only exception being those few persons who are rescued by election of grace, from what motive one does not know.
Schopenhauer On the Christian System
this kills the chirstard
I love me some Schopey but the expectation of a punishment that comes at the end of all things can definitely deter people from doing bad stuff now.
Yeah, one.
You cannot confine good and evil to be totally dependent on subjective experience. What seems good to humans is good and what seems evil is evil. But this totally disregards God’s conception of good, which is more objective. A world in which humans only perceive good is therefore not necessarily objectively good.
God’s objective omnibenevolence/goodness/justice is not affected by our subjective views. God is good because God is Truth and is a glorious Creator. In the same way that I eat animals for my purpose, making it good for me, God does whatever he needs to do for his objective standard of good. Unfortunately this allows suffering to exist for us, but God is merciful, so he allows a way to salvation, which we can either accept or reject
God is objectively good, but also subjectively benevolent to humans. But God can also be subjectively malevolent. This has to be the case, since some people hate God, and some people go to hell.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Deuteronomy 7:9
>9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.
The problem of evil is a subjective problem only, made worse when you’re an atheist.
>10But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
Leibniz was wrong and this is only a problem for monists. Christians don't claim this world is the best possible world.
>God is good because God is Truth and is a glorious Creator.
Uh ok, if you say so.
Two?
It only kills the mentally ill version of Christianity and so he is doing us a great service.
>God’s conception of good, which is more objective
>God does whatever he needs to do for his objective standard of good
You don't know what objective means do you?
I don't think any serious Theistic thinker has ever said that metaphysical possibility is created by God's will.
>mentally ill version of Christianity
Protestantism?
The illness is deeper and can infect catholic and orthodox as well. At it's core it is a human problem, not a religious one
it doesn’t depend on our thoughts our feelings. God is the objective standard
God's thought and feelings maybe? I just declared myself to be the objective standard. What you gonna do about it
>God
You mean the Yahweh demon... That’s the “god” of Israel. His commandments are not binding on all humanity. Silly user!
Fuck off Gaunilo
Read literally the first sentence in OP's quote
?
That doesn't mean he has to go through with it. It's not like the dead are publishing books on the unreality of hell.
"best of all possible worlds" translates logically to no worlds being better, there is no possible world better than the best of all possible worlds because that would be a contradiction in terms.
baka at people who try to talk about Leibniz' modality without understanding anything about modality
It should evident to anyone who has read the bible that if Yahweh exists, he is an evil demon.
Can anyone respond to this post? I'm p sure it's the correct answer
Well you aren’t OOO buddy
Everything just is, the idea of future projection, better and worse are all dependent on the human mind.
In this case we are projecting our ideals onto god, but that doesn't mean that god works that way.
The whole argument is fallacious, as it starts on the premises that god: conciously chose to create this world; that he can differentiate what worse and better are; that if he can differentiate, he would prefer to create the better one.
I know this isn't following the structure of leibniz or schopenhauer, but their arguments are adhoc reasonings.
First of all, literal Hell with grilled meat is not specifically Christian. Many beliefs share some kind of it. Second, you have to be naive — or dumb utilitarian — person to believe that punishment, even a guaranteed one, keeps people from doing bad. We can't really base faith on that. So, this is a critique of a religion that is two thousand years late, and that has already been done.
How world good if me sad?
Not him but what is that point?
Your sadness is good.
God’s good > your sad
t. God
“Best”, “Good”, “Bad” are categories that only obtain meaning when limited to an end. This is the “best” possible world for what? Meaningless notion. This is the ONLY possible world (a la Spinoza). All things follow from the necessity of the Divine Essence. Possibility belongs to the illusions of men’s minds (like the notion of universals). Possibility arises when men see that several contingencies can be derived from the same cause. However, this only means that that “cause” is not the efficient cause of any one of those contingencies. The real one remains unknown to us, therefore when the cause we attribute is present, we say that any of the contigencies previously known are possible. But if we knew what the real conditions were, we would know precisely which effect would occur, leaving no room for “possibility”, only necessity. There is no other possible world, you only consider the notion because the efficient cause of existence is unknown to you. Even if there were “parallel universes” or whatever, they would still belong to the one and only world, in which they all follow by necessity from the same efficient cause (under different, but specific conditions).
If world bad how God!?!!?
Possibility doesnt imply necessity
Next one!
possibility is necessity and visa versa
Dragon Ball Z world is objectively better than this one therefore some child cartoon BTFOed Leibniz
>best of all possible worlds
>anime isn’t real
God is gay and Leibniz is thereby refuted
Dragon Ball Z world might exist though
Bump