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.

(June 6, 2010 at 3:03 pm)Caecilian Wrote: 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.

In theory. But we're not to know. This may have been the best possible scenario. Also, it would depend on your perspective... a possible universe could be biased toward an infinite set of possible elements of that universe. Either way there are no conclusions to be drawn.

(June 6, 2010 at 3:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 6, 2010 at 3:03 pm)Caecilian Wrote: 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.

In theory. But we're not to know. This may have been the best possible scenario. Also, it would depend on your perspective... a possible universe could be biased toward an infinite set of possible elements of that universe. Either way there are no conclusions to be drawn.

Its really simple, fr0d0. If god can do anything that is logically possible, then he could've created a better universe. He didn't, so he's a cunt.

You haven't said anything that comes close to denting this argument.

lol

The dent comes in the form of the argument having no possible conclusion for either side. It is impotent as far as arguments go. You just choose to word it on one possible outcome, without justification for that bias. The argument defeats itself.

@Caecillian

I think it is fair to say that Leibniz's contention was that our world is the best of all possible worlds. He inferred this from two traditional god attributes (all-knowingness and omnibenevolence) which renders the argument unfalsifiable for humans. But he thus logicallly ensured that our world must be the best of all possible worlds. In fact his argument boils down to the conclusion that another version of our world, for instance a version without kid cancer, would necessarily harbour an evil greater than kid cancer.It is therefore unclear to me how you suddenly can claim to bypass this and state that another possible world must be better.

When you restrict your argument to nomologically possible worlds you place additional conditions on the set of all logically possible worlds. For instance, correspondence rules between the different possible worlds are needed in a nomological set, because that's how they are defined. This means that measurability must be garanteed of aspects of all possible worlds. But that is not something we can arrange from our point of view in this universe. We have no access (yet) to other universes.

Are you still following? It means that:
1) the set of nomologically possible worlds is a subset of all logically possible worlds
2) we cannot construct any set of nomologically possible worlds that contains more than only our present universe
3) you cannot arrive at the conclusion that there is another nomologically possible world that is better than ours

Oh, and forget the usual frodonian drool, it's not worthy of your attention ;-)

(June 6, 2010 at 5:03 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

---

@Caecillian

I think it is fair to say that Leibniz's contention was that our world is the best of all possible worlds. He inferred this from two traditional god attributes (all-knowingness and omnibenevolence) which renders the argument unfalsifiable for humans. But he thus logicallly ensured that our world must be the best of all possible worlds. In fact his argument boils down to the conclusion that another version of our world, for instance a version without kid cancer, would necessarily harbour an evil greater than kid cancer.It is therefore unclear to me how you suddenly can claim to bypass this and state that another possible world must be better.

When you restrict your argument to nomologically possible worlds you place additional conditions on the set of all logically possible worlds. For instance, correspondence rules between the different possible worlds are needed in a nomological set, because that's how they are defined. This means that measurability must be garanteed of aspects of all possible worlds. But that is not something we can arrange from our point of view in this universe. We have no access (yet) to other universes.

Are you still following? It means that:
1) the set of nomologically possible worlds is a subset of all logically possible worlds
2) we cannot construct any set of nomologically possible worlds that contains more than only our present universe
3) you cannot arrive at the conclusion that there is another nomologically possible world that is better than ours

Oh, and forget the usual frodonian drool, it's not worthy of your attention ;-)

---

Okay...

First of all, I haven't read Leibniz, so I'll have to defer to you on what he meant. It appears to be a circular argument (yet again):
a) God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent
b) Therefore, we must live in the best of all possible worlds
c) Therefore, the problem of evil is solved
d) Therefore, god is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent
Not very convincing, I'm afraid.

In reply to your numbered points:
1. Yes, thats obviously true.
2. Maybe. I think that its a fair assumption that there are other nomologically possible worlds, given that microphysics appears to be stochastic. Iow: with a stochastic microphysics, there are other possible present states of the universe, given identical starting conditions. Makes sense to me.
3. I don't need to. In fact, I concede the issue in my first point. The argument hinges on 'god' being limited by logical rather than nomological possibility. Unless you're prepared to argue that the two are identical (i.e. that our physical laws are somehow metaphysically necessary), then its hard to see how a better universe isn't logically possible.

I'll try to re-phrase the argument:

1. We assume that we really do live in the best of all nomologically possible worlds.

2. However, it is very easy to imagine a better world ('heaven' might serve as some sort of model here).

3. Therefore, we do not live in the best of all logically possible worlds.

4. 'God' is only limited by what is logically possible (he is omnipotent).

5. Therefore, god could have instantiated a different world from the set of logically possible worlds. Some of the different worlds that he could've instantiated would be better than ours.

6. But he didn't. He instantiated our world, which is not the best logically possible world even if it is the best nomologically possible world.

7. Therefore, god is a cunt.

(June 6, 2010 at 6:17 pm)Caecilian Wrote: 2. However, it is very easy to imagine a better world ('heaven' might serve as some sort of model here).

Forgive my uniformed contribution... but in what way is heaven anything like a realistic concept of a world? the model is totally illogical.

OK carry on talking theory..

(June 6, 2010 at 6:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 6, 2010 at 6:17 pm)Caecilian Wrote: 2. However, it is very easy to imagine a better world ('heaven' might serve as some sort of model here).

Forgive my uniformed contribution... but in what way is heaven anything like a realistic concept of a world? the model is totally illogical.

OK carry on talking theory..

Realism doesn't have much at all to do with logical possibility.

A universe consisting entirely of giant pink beachballs is logically possible. Its not nomologically possible, of course.

Oops;deleted double post

(June 6, 2010 at 7:16 pm)Caecilian Wrote: A universe consisting entirely of giant pink beachballs is logically possible. Its not nomologically possible, of course.

To be logically possible what we're talking about has to meet the requirements of sustaining life at least. Otherwise 'logical' doesn't meet it's requirements.