- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 May 18
Do you disagree with this statement and if so, how would you correct it?
"In particular, the philosopher Leibniz famously maintains that, since the world was created by God, and since the mind of God is the most benevolent and capable mind imaginable, the world must be the best world imaginable. Under such a system, humans perceive evil only because they do not understand the force governing the world and thus do not know that every ill exists only for a greater good."
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/candide/quotes/
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
29 May 18
Originally posted by @js357It’s an interesting idea, but I don’t think it’s entirely Biblical as it negates the idea of Satan’s existence and that Satan is the ruler of this world for now, though within limits imposed by God.
Do you disagree with this statement and if so, how would you correct it?
"In particular, the philosopher Leibniz famously maintains that, since the world was created by God, and since the mind of God is the most benevolent and capable mind imaginable, the world must be the best world imaginable. Under such a system, humans perceive evil only because they d ...[text shortened]... that every ill exists only for a greater good."
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/candide/quotes/
“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
(2 Corinthians 2:3-4)
“Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.”
(John 14:30)
But I agree God takes what is evil and makes it good for His children.
“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”
(Romans 8:28)
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
Originally posted by @js357I think that is the clearest indication that such a deity does 'not' exist. A perfect God would indeed have created a perfect world, and any imperfections would necessitate human misunderstanding as to the nature of that perfection. However, even an imperfect human is able to surmise that earthquakes or diseases are not systematic of a perfect creation brought into realization by a perfect deity. (Nor can these imperfections be attributed in any way to human involvement).
Do you disagree with this statement and if so, how would you correct it?
"In particular, the philosopher Leibniz famously maintains that, since the world was created by God, and since the mind of God is the most benevolent and capable mind imaginable, the world must be the best world imaginable. Under such a system, humans perceive evil only because they d ...[text shortened]... that every ill exists only for a greater good."
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/candide/quotes/
29 May 18
Originally posted by @js357The argument hinges on two notions:
Do you disagree with this statement and if so, how would you correct it?
"In particular, the philosopher Leibniz famously maintains that, since the world was created by God, and since the mind of God is the most benevolent and capable mind imaginable, the world must be the best world imaginable. Under such a system, humans perceive evil only because they d ...[text shortened]... that every ill exists only for a greater good."
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/candide/quotes/
I. Because God knows the future, he also knows the results of every possible action, and guides things to the best possible result that also allows our free will to be exercised.
So, it is the best possible world given the human condition.
This also implies that when we see something evil that happens we do not actually consider that these might be minor to the level of evil that could have occurred.
II. Our worldly existence isn't that important compared to our afterlives, and so the suffering of people who achieved martyrdom are irrelevant, and as are the suffering of other innocents, because they will receive their reward.
I would also make this note:
This argument is form Theodicy, and in Theodicy he literally outlined loads of possible arguments, and it was not an argument that he lingered on particularly long. Indeed, as I remember he spent much more time talking about free will & predestination and advancing a compatibalist position.
So like... I do not think that Leibniz rises and falls based on this notion and, in my opinion, there were a lot of other parts of his work that was more memorable.
29 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeHe did.
I think that is the clearest indication that such a deity does 'not' exist. A perfect God would indeed have created a perfect world, and any imperfections would necessitate human misunderstanding as to the nature of that perfection. However, even an imperfect human is able to surmise that earthquakes or diseases are not systematic of a perfect creat ...[text shortened]... by a perfect deity. (Nor can these imperfections be attributed in any way to human involvement).
Prior to creating, the Trinity enjoyed absolute and total perfection: themselves.
Creating another will brings tension.
This--- the current state of the universe (and His remedy) --- is how He works it out.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009Elsewhere Leibniz argues that if "the world must be the best world imaginable," then evil must be a necessary part of any imaginable world, because it is part of our optimal world. I could see that; if the doing of evil were a necessary outcome of bestowing free will, and a world with free will is better than any world without it. The fact that there is Satan managing or urging men to do evil is accidental to this world; other possible worlds having free-will creatures might have different evils or different evil agents, but they would be on a morally optimum par with our own; as the best possible way to enable a greater good; that being the exercise of free will.. So I don't think Leibniz ruled out Satan from our world. Although he might have questioned the personhood of Satan as opposed to being a metaphor, I don't know about that, but I think he didn't question the existence of evil.
It’s an interesting idea, but I don’t think it’s entirely Biblical as it negates the idea of Satan’s existence and that Satan is the ruler of this world for now, though within limits imposed by God.
“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the li ...[text shortened]... od to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”
(Romans 8:28)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz
29 May 18
This reminds me..
""Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world where none suffered, where everyone would be happy? It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed that we lacked the programming language to describe your "perfect world". But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through misery and suffering. So the perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from."
-Agent Smith
----
The lesson being, as humans we reject a perfect world where none suffer because it robs us of the knowledge of good and evil with the free will to act upon that knowledge.
Ever see the movie 'Pleasantville' -- same idea.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
29 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou realize God cursed the earth after man’s fall in the Garden of Eden and that prior to man’s fall and the emergence of sin in the world, the earth was indeed perfect?
I think that is the clearest indication that such a deity does 'not' exist. A perfect God would indeed have created a perfect world, and any imperfections would necessitate human misunderstanding as to the nature of that perfection. However, even an imperfect human is able to surmise that earthquakes or diseases are not systematic of a perfect creat ...[text shortened]... by a perfect deity. (Nor can these imperfections be attributed in any way to human involvement).
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
29 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @freakykbhPlease explain how creating 'another' (humanity) led to such imperfections as earthquakes and diseases?
He did.
Prior to creating, the Trinity enjoyed absolute and total perfection: themselves.
Creating another will brings tension.
This--- the current state of the universe (and His remedy) --- is how He works it out.
(Question addressed to Freaky).
Edit: Please note, to aid dialogue, I don't entertain notions of curses or a garden with 'talking snakes'.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
29 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeHe didn’t create “another” humanity. I think you totally misunderstood Freaky’s point.
Please explain how creating 'another' (humanity) led to such imperfections as earthquakes and diseases?
(Question addressed to Freaky).
Edit: Please note, to aid dialogue, I don't entertain notions of curses or a garden with 'talking snakes'.
And if you dismiss that God cursed the earth, you’re simply cherry picking from the Bible and asking for answers when the answers are in verses and passages you’ve chosen to ignore.
🙄
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29597
29 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAgain, this question is for Freaky.
Please explain how creating 'another' (humanity) led to such imperfections as earthquakes and diseases?
(Question addressed to Freaky).
Edit: Please note, to aid dialogue, I don't entertain notions of curses or a garden with 'talking snakes'.
Please note the brackets around (humanity) explaining what I was referring to with 'another.' Thanks.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
29 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAh, yes. The brackets explain everything. 🙄
Again, this question is for Freaky.
Please note the brackets around (humanity) explaining what I was referring to with 'another.' Thanks.
29 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhen two wills are disparate, what do you consider to be the expected outcome?
Please explain how creating 'another' (humanity) led to such imperfections as earthquakes and diseases?
(Question addressed to Freaky).
Edit: Please note, to aid dialogue, I don't entertain notions of curses or a garden with 'talking snakes'.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
29 May 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeFor whatever reason imperfections exist -
I think that is the clearest indication that such a deity does 'not' exist. A perfect God would indeed have created a perfect world, and any imperfections would necessitate human misunderstanding as to the nature of that perfection. However, even an imperfect human is able to surmise that earthquakes or diseases are not systematic of a perfect creat ...[text shortened]... by a perfect deity. (Nor can these imperfections be attributed in any way to human involvement).
In clearing the world of these imperfections, would you like God to start with you or with someone else?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
29 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009At every moment, under Leibniz' view, this world and any other God-created world is the best possible world, before, during and after the fall and the subsequent curse... The inception of sin into the world may have been coincident, or soon following, or some time after the bestowal of free will, but in any case this world was the best possible world at every moment throughout, because it necessarily proceeded, how it went, for the greater good of bestowing free will. It seems to me that this is the most straightforward [Christian] reading of Leibniz. Not that the fall was predetermined, but that any setting in which free will was bestowed, was the best possible setting for that world to achieve free will. Otherwise, it would have happened in the better way.
You realize God cursed the earth after man’s fall in the Garden of Eden and that prior to man’s fall and the emergence of sin in the world, the earth was indeed perfect?