0

everybody. I recently got to come discover Leibnitz's solution regarding "the best possible world". The whole argumentation really feel off to me, but I am not so knowledgeable of the matter to come up on why. could any of you wonderful people give me a good counterargument or pointing some logical fallacy in it, or at least directing me toward somewhere I can come up with my answer?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

Mark Andrews
  • 5,894
  • 5
  • 21
  • 38
MagicQuill
  • 1
  • The SEP article on the problem of evil includes a section on [the "there is no best-of-all-possible-worlds" response](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#NoBesAllPosWorRes) to the problem. Or have you read [*Candide*](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Candide)? – Kristian Berry Aug 07 '23 at 11:19
  • 2
    You can start here, [SEP, Leibniz on the Problem of Evil](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/#Und). For a cogent answer here the question would have to be more specific, there are too many ways to contest Leibniz's premises, too many possible responses to them, and so on. – Conifold Aug 07 '23 at 11:21
  • Leibniz is no more, long live Leibniz. – Agent Smith Aug 08 '23 at 15:56

1 Answers1

1

Where's the evidence & I don't buy it

This being the best possible world is presented as little more than an assertion and/or it logically follows from a particular conception of a god, which we don't have good reason to believe exists (although theists presumably disagree). The latter would be circular, given that it assumes God's existence as a premise, and it's used as a response to the problem of evil, which challenges God's existence.

We shouldn't accept things as true just because someone claims it. We need some evidence or other justification.

Also, consider what exactly is being claimed. The world we live in is not exactly some utopia. Consider every child who suffers and dies of cancer or other diseases, every child who starves to death, every person who loses their homes, families or lives due to natural disasters, etc. Supposedly not even a single case of that doesn't lead to some greater good (or none of it is avoidable, but since this conception of God is all-knowing and all-powerful, everything is avoidable if it's God's will). That's quite a bold claim. I'd challenge anyone who thinks this is the best world to spend a month working in the children's cancer ward in a hospital and see if they still feel that way afterwards*.

If you were to take an agnostic stance on the existence of a god, and you just look at the world as it is, it certainly doesn't seem like everything that happens serves some greater good. In fact, it would probably be immensely difficult to even come up with a plausible greater good for just a handful of cases of extreme suffering.

That's not to say it's impossible - "God is beyond understanding" is a common response, if very unsatisfying and non-explanatory, and can serve as an explanation for anything with pretty much any conception of God. It just seems very unlikely that it's the best possible world, and brings into question the existence of an all-powerful all-loving all-knowing god. Simply asserting that it's true isn't going to fly.

* Although seeing or experiencing suffering oneself could add emotional appeal to beliefs that would give a reason for the suffering, because otherwise such things just happen because of bad luck. So it could strengthen such a belief too, for non-rational reasons. As a side note, if you think there's some greater purpose to suffering, and it's all orchestrated by an all-powerful being, you may be less inclined to see suffering as a problem that needs addressing or solving.

NotThatGuy
  • 4,003
  • 13
  • 18