I like the rabbit's argument re. heaven, but it only appears to work if heaven is conceived of as a 'possible world'. Since many non-literalist theists don't view heaven in those terms, I think that the argument really only works against the more literally-minded theists- the fundies, basically.
However, I think that theres a more general argument against the 'best of all possible worlds' defence. As follows:
1. First of all, we have to clarify what sort of possible worlds we're talking about. Since anyone can imagine a better world, logical possibility can be ruled out. This leaves nomological possibility. If this is the best of all nomologically possible worlds then:
There is no better possible world than this with the same physical laws and starting conditions.
Now personally I find this to be a ludicrous proposition, but never mind. Lets assume that its true.
2. Theists define 'god' as being 'omnipotent'. This is usually taken to mean that god can do anything that is logically possible. Critically, god is not limited by the physical laws of the universe (which define what is nomologically possible).
3. If god is omnipotent, then the worlds that god could have brought into existence is limited by logical possibility and not by nomological possibility.
4. Therefore, god could have created a universe with different laws and/or starting conditions. Some of these possible worlds would be better than the one which we inhabit.
5. Responsibility for the state of the world thus lies squarely with god. He could have created a universe which was better, but did not.
6. The problem of evil stands. And god is a malevolent cunt.
However, I think that theres a more general argument against the 'best of all possible worlds' defence. As follows:
1. First of all, we have to clarify what sort of possible worlds we're talking about. Since anyone can imagine a better world, logical possibility can be ruled out. This leaves nomological possibility. If this is the best of all nomologically possible worlds then:
There is no better possible world than this with the same physical laws and starting conditions.
Now personally I find this to be a ludicrous proposition, but never mind. Lets assume that its true.
2. Theists define 'god' as being 'omnipotent'. This is usually taken to mean that god can do anything that is logically possible. Critically, god is not limited by the physical laws of the universe (which define what is nomologically possible).
3. If god is omnipotent, then the worlds that god could have brought into existence is limited by logical possibility and not by nomological possibility.
4. Therefore, god could have created a universe with different laws and/or starting conditions. Some of these possible worlds would be better than the one which we inhabit.
5. Responsibility for the state of the world thus lies squarely with god. He could have created a universe which was better, but did not.
6. The problem of evil stands. And god is a malevolent cunt.
He who desires to worship God must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but bravely renounce his liberty and humanity.
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche
Mikhail Bakunin
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything
Friedrich Nietzsche
