tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post2804934957939591192..comments2023-09-02T07:14:49.753-04:00Comments on Atheism And The City: Could God Create The Best Of All Possible Worlds?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-80825315941349004202013-12-11T19:18:26.010-05:002013-12-11T19:18:26.010-05:00My argument is totally immune to Craig's notio...My argument is totally immune to Craig's notion that some people might reject god. In my response to this argument, World W doesn't even get created, it exists only in god's infinite knowledge. He know who would come to heaven (World H) IF he created World W, so he only creates the heaven that would exist for world W.<br /><br />So according to this all god needs is a world in which some people "freely" choose god. That's it. The ad infinitum scenario is negated, So my argument doesn't hinge on the being a world in which everyone free chooses god. <br /><br />But on the feasibility of a possible world in which everyone chooses god, I certainly think it's logically possible. It might only have a few thousand people but it's possible. I don't see how Craig can defend the notion that it is logically impossible, or unfeasible that god cannot create a world only populated freely by Christians. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-26899752427024744762013-12-11T18:23:29.978-05:002013-12-11T18:23:29.978-05:00Ignoring the straight to heaven notion, just on ta...Ignoring the straight to heaven notion, just on taking subsets of people in any given world who come to freely love god and only creating them...<br /><br />What do you make of Craig's defence that this is unfeasible? And the idea, even, that unfeasible is differentiatable from logically impossible?<br /><br />In other words, Craig says of your case that if in World W, H come to freely love God, then why not just take H (and not the hellers)?<br /><br />Craig claims that if you just took H, and put them in, say, W1, then this new circumstance might mean that at least one of them might end up in hell. So this gives H1, the new, slightly smaller subset of people who freely love God. So if you took H1 and put them in a new world, W2, then this new circumstance might make at least one reject God. etc ad infinitum.<br /><br />Craig claims that this might seem logically possible to create the freely loving people only, but it could be unfeasible such there is no possible world where ALL would freely love God.<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br /><br />My thoughts would be that unfeasible is a crappy notion. If it is logically possible, God could do it, and there is nothing to suggest that a world with only people who would freely love God is impossible (despite its low probability).<br /><br />And then you could just create heaven anyway. Given divine foreknowledge, he knows all the people who will in the future come to freely love him, and will get into heaven. So just create them in heaven without the test which will condemn the majority (knowingly) to hell!<br /><br />So simple!Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-10158955098199620242013-12-06T19:58:52.449-05:002013-12-06T19:58:52.449-05:00Best possible worlds are tricky, but I suppose the...Best possible worlds are tricky, but I suppose the closest thing we can get to it would be a heaven-only world populated by beings that wanted to be there. In such a world there would be no bad, but the good would be maximized because the good is relative to what you think is good. If you think being in god's presence is the ultimate good (if that's what you like at least) then a heaven only world populated by beings that wanted to be there I suppose would be the best possible world.The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-86681367804217715142013-12-05T23:33:24.761-05:002013-12-05T23:33:24.761-05:00I like your argument. Some thoughts that tend to w...I like your argument. Some thoughts that tend to work against the meaningfulness of a best possible world:<br /><br />We don't really know the domain of all possible worlds. It could be that there is something inherent in world construction that necessitates things that some creatures living in it (or after-living in it) are going to regard as "not best". (Who else is the judge of "not best"? "Not best" for what?) Even in heaven as preachers describe it, heaven-dwellers may have to watch their offspring go to hell. At minimum it seems they'll believe they're in hell, by their extended absence in heaven.<br /><br />Or it could be that the "best" world doesn't actually exist, but we can get arbitrarily closer to the goal, by taking smaller and smaller steps. At what point does the next smaller step not matter enough to take it? Logically, never. But in human context, there's a point beyond which we just don't care to take the next step, even if all it costs is the time to take it. We cannot feel infinite time.<br /><br />And, while there many not be a maximum to "best", your argument is like the idea that there is a minimum size to "worst". It's unclear whether a world can reach that minimum (nothing "bad"). It seems that each next "best" world would have to either have nothing bad in it, or the net good (good minus bad) would have to improve. It's unclear how to calculate "good minus bad", but you can compare values if the steps taken change only the good, or only the bad. If they are not independent, and change together, that presents a problem...<br /><br />I think the main thing I convinced myself of is that without an idea of what sort of possible worlds there are, I'm not likely to be impressed by an argument that claims we can just keep supposing meaningfully better and better worlds, endlessly, as in the theist's assessment in the post. I would modify (A) as <br />"if God is omniscient, omnipotent and all-good, he would have created a world such that any better world W', as measured by inhabitants of W, is not so much better that they would notice or care even with full knowledge of it."Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06294841118508802764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-79079479602932963982013-12-02T12:59:38.619-05:002013-12-02T12:59:38.619-05:00Don't forget about super-heaven :)
Seriously ...Don't forget about super-heaven :)<br /><br />Seriously though, this seems like a really good argument to me, I'd be curious how a christian would counter it.Hausdorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01690401058367596952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-56540800593285714092013-12-01T01:58:03.204-05:002013-12-01T01:58:03.204-05:00Thanks Grundy. I really want to see challenges to ...Thanks Grundy. I really want to see challenges to this argument I'm making. I think that if heaven could exist, to the Christian or Muslim, that world of heaven would be the best possible world. So I don't think they can claim a best possible world is impossible. But, I'd really like to see a theist debate me on this. Maybe they will concede and say heaven is a good world but not the best possible world. That is the only way I can think of that a theist can get out of this problem. Otherwise they have to admit that a best possible world is logically possible and then they're on the hook for this argument. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-78744564874767467092013-11-30T10:44:31.747-05:002013-11-30T10:44:31.747-05:00This is an iron clad argument to anyone not indoct...This is an iron clad argument to anyone not indoctrinated to deny it for the sake of denying it. My only criticism is by going with the abbreviation World H, it sounds like either heaven or hell...they both begin with H. :-)<br /><br />People in heaven can't have free will or heaven can't be guaranteed to be an all good place, but it occurs to me that people in hell can't have free will either. In order for God to be considered forgiving, those eternally tortured can never rehabilitate...seems like a sadistic and needless system.Grundyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07339125862340793733noreply@blogger.com