Even if this is the best of all worlds, is it still better than no world at all?

[PyramidHead]

Leibniz famously claimed that the world we live in, created by a perfect God, was the best possible world. Yet, even if he's right, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the best possible world is still worse than no world. If the only way this world could have been created was imperfectly, full of suffering, then why did God create it to begin with? The problem of suffering is not resolved by claiming that the world we have is optimal compared to other possible worlds; you have to show that it's better than nothingness. Inasmuch as God is supposedly perfection incarnate, the absence of our universe would mean that only God would exist, which would be the most exalted perfection attainable; thus the claim that God + the universe is better than just God seems to be closed off to Christians. To avoid the conclusion that reality would somehow be incomplete without our flawed and unjust universe, it must be conceded that God could not have been doing something benevolent when he created everything.

 

[Lion IRC]

A thing can't be the best possible if it doesn't "be".

 

[ruby sparks]

Leibniz famously claimed that the world we live in, created by a perfect God, was the best possible world. Yet, even if he's right, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the best possible world is still worse than no world. If the only way this world could have been created was imperfectly, full of suffering, then why did God create it to begin with? The problem of suffering is not resolved by claiming that the world we have is optimal compared to other possible worlds; you have to show that it's better than nothingness. Inasmuch as God is supposedly perfection incarnate, the absence of our universe would mean that only God would exist, which would be the most exalted perfection attainable; thus the claim that God + the universe is better than just God seems to be closed off to Christians. To avoid the conclusion that reality would somehow be incomplete without our flawed and unjust universe, it must be conceded that God could not have been doing something benevolent when he created everything.

Do we have to bring a Lordgord into it? It's so......well....hypothetical. Oh I suppose we do, since it's the religion forum.

That said, I don't see the point since it's unlikely there even is one (a gord). So I hope it doesn't seem too churlish if I make an off-topic remark instead, that the general, not-necessarily-to-do-with-cosmic-elflords question 'is a life better than no life' is, imho, a good way to start a conversation on the possible merits of abortion.

 

[rousseau]

This strikes me as something that would have to be decided on a person to person basis, and not a question that can be answered definitively.

Asking 'whether there should be a world' implies that there is a person making the judgement, and so ultimately it's up to that person.

 

[ruby sparks]

This strikes me as something that would have to be decided on a person to person basis, and not a question that can be answered definitively.

Asking 'whether there should be a world' implies that there is a person making the judgement, and so ultimately it's up to that person.

Indeed. And also very relevant to the abortion issue.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The subtle point is that a perfect world and nothingness are the same.

Without suffering there is no awareness.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If this is the best possible world, why do I have to pay strippers to take their clothes off for me instead of young, beautiful women just deciding to do that for me out of the goodness of their hearts?

Leibniz's story kind of falls apart when you examine it.

 

[rousseau]

The subtle point is that a perfect world and nothingness are the same.

Without suffering there is no awareness.

I always find these philosophers of old a bit out-dated.

In a more modern, scientific perspective you can re-frame suffering as something with utility, that's not really a net negative at all. Suffering is what makes us overcome our problems.

Imagine if the bad things that happened to you caused you no concern? What then?

 

[Horatio Parker]

The subtle point is that a perfect world and nothingness are the same.

Without suffering there is no awareness.

I always find these philosophers of old a bit out-dated.

In a more modern, scientific perspective you can re-frame suffering as something with utility, that's not really a net negative at all. Suffering is what makes us overcome our problems.

Imagine if the bad things that happened to you caused you no concern? What then?

I'm suspicious of utility in suffering...too morbid. However integral it may be, it's still suffering.

 

[abaddon]

If suffering is integral, it is by definition necessary. So not liking it hardly matters.

 

[rousseau]

The subtle point is that a perfect world and nothingness are the same.

Without suffering there is no awareness.

I always find these philosophers of old a bit out-dated.

In a more modern, scientific perspective you can re-frame suffering as something with utility, that's not really a net negative at all. Suffering is what makes us overcome our problems.

Imagine if the bad things that happened to you caused you no concern? What then?

I'm suspicious of utility in suffering...too morbid. However integral it may be, it's still suffering.

Granted, it still allows you to ask the question of whether no world would be better.

But at the same time you can re-frame your point to 'without suffering there is no existence'. So any other points are secondary to whether the suffering you experience is worth the pleasure. For some people it is, for others maybe not.

 

[James Brown]

I can't help but think there is a difference between suffering and struggling. I can see the value in a struggle, but it's harder to see the value in suffering.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If suffering is integral, it is by definition necessary. So not liking it hardly matters.

It's a matter of tone or emphasis. Accepting vs embracing.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm suspicious of utility in suffering...too morbid. However integral it may be, it's still suffering.

Granted, it still allows you to ask the question of whether no world would be better.

But at the same time you can re-frame your point to 'without suffering there is no existence'. So any other points are secondary to whether the suffering you experience is worth the pleasure. For some people it is, for others maybe not.

The Bhuddists say, "to live is to suffer". To my mind, that's a neutral way of expressing it. As opposed to the symbolism of the crucifixion, which is also about transcending suffering (imo), but its expression is morbid.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I can't help but think there is a difference between suffering and struggling. I can see the value in a struggle, but it's harder to see the value in suffering.

Yes. No guarantee that any fate can be opposed, let alone overcome.

 

[PyramidHead]

A thing can't be the best possible if it doesn't "be".

There is a difference between asking if a stab to the throat is better than a stab to the gut, versus whether either is better than not being stabbed at all. All things considered, I would rather be stabbed in the gut if the only other option was the throat. But I would wonder why I had to be stabbed at all, why not being stabbed was never available to me.

 

[PyramidHead]

Leibniz famously claimed that the world we live in, created by a perfect God, was the best possible world. Yet, even if he's right, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the best possible world is still worse than no world. If the only way this world could have been created was imperfectly, full of suffering, then why did God create it to begin with? The problem of suffering is not resolved by claiming that the world we have is optimal compared to other possible worlds; you have to show that it's better than nothingness. Inasmuch as God is supposedly perfection incarnate, the absence of our universe would mean that only God would exist, which would be the most exalted perfection attainable; thus the claim that God + the universe is better than just God seems to be closed off to Christians. To avoid the conclusion that reality would somehow be incomplete without our flawed and unjust universe, it must be conceded that God could not have been doing something benevolent when he created everything.

Do we have to bring a Lordgord into it? It's so......well....hypothetical. Oh I suppose we do, since it's the religion forum.

That said, I don't see the point since it's unlikely there even is one (a gord). So I hope it doesn't seem too churlish if I make an off-topic remark instead, that the general, not-necessarily-to-do-with-cosmic-elflords question 'is a life better than no life' is, imho, a good way to start a conversation on the possible merits of abortion.

Well, yes. The covert purpose of this thread is to raise that very issue, in a way: if we can't fathom any reason why a benevolent God would create an imperfect world when he could have simply not created any world, it should be similarly unfathomable why a benevolent human would bring another human into such a world, when abstaining was always an option.

 

[PyramidHead]

The subtle point is that a perfect world and nothingness are the same.

Without suffering there is no awareness.

I always find these philosophers of old a bit out-dated.

In a more modern, scientific perspective you can re-frame suffering as something with utility, that's not really a net negative at all. Suffering is what makes us overcome our problems.

Imagine if the bad things that happened to you caused you no concern? What then?

That only concedes the point to the pessimist. What you are saying is: this world is set up in such a way that, in order to obtain something of value (or "utility"), we must suffer, otherwise we won't be able to overcome our problems (which are a given). If this is the best possible world God could muster, we cannot but conclude that the best world is still a bad one. Provided the choice between making a world where its denizens have to scramble and scrounge through their problems and suffer gratuitously (far beyond the amount that would provide any "utility") and simply not doing so, what kind of God would go forward with initiating this plan?

 

[rousseau]

The subtle point is that a perfect world and nothingness are the same.

Without suffering there is no awareness.

I always find these philosophers of old a bit out-dated.

In a more modern, scientific perspective you can re-frame suffering as something with utility, that's not really a net negative at all. Suffering is what makes us overcome our problems.

Imagine if the bad things that happened to you caused you no concern? What then?

That only concedes the point to the pessimist. What you are saying is: this world is set up in such a way that, in order to obtain something of value (or "utility"), we must suffer, otherwise we won't be able to overcome our problems (which are a given). If this is the best possible world God could muster, we cannot but conclude that the best world is still a bad one. Provided the choice between making a world where its denizens have to scramble and scrounge through their problems and suffer gratuitously (far beyond the amount that would provide any "utility") and simply not doing so, what kind of God would go forward with initiating this plan?

It comes back to the point that's been re-hashed many times at this forum: it comes down to the individual.

Life can be a problem to one person, and not to another. There is no such thing as a ubiquitous 'life = bad'. Everybody struggles, everybody will feel pain, but to some people it's worth it.

This moves us back to the question of why a person would bring a child into the world if they knew the child was going to suffer, and the answer there ends with the point that people aren't rational, and the choices they make aren't always made by some ethical algorithm.

As for God, I don't know why that's being brought into the equation unless this thread is really about God. To me the idea of God is so incoherent that it's not really worth discussing.

 

[PyramidHead]

That only concedes the point to the pessimist. What you are saying is: this world is set up in such a way that, in order to obtain something of value (or "utility"), we must suffer, otherwise we won't be able to overcome our problems (which are a given). If this is the best possible world God could muster, we cannot but conclude that the best world is still a bad one. Provided the choice between making a world where its denizens have to scramble and scrounge through their problems and suffer gratuitously (far beyond the amount that would provide any "utility") and simply not doing so, what kind of God would go forward with initiating this plan?

It comes back to the point that's been re-hashed many times at this forum: it comes down to the individual.

Life can be a problem to one person, and not to another. There is no such thing as a ubiquitous 'life = bad'. Everybody struggles, everybody will feel pain, but to some people it's worth it.

I disagree on this larger point, that pessimism and optimism come down to individual attitudes and subjective preferences. Whether or not philosophical pessimism is true does not depend on whether or not "it's worth it", but merely on the fact that "everybody struggles, everybody will feel pain". If not for that reality, you would certainly place optimism as the most rational choice, and not a matter of individual preference; subjectivity about the topic is therefore a position of consolation. The placement of this truth outside the realm of subjective acceptance, at the level of a universal aspect of life, renders life perfectly intelligible to rational evaluation. Pessimism (the philosophical/structural variety, not common-sense pessimism) can't be refuted by a retreat to subjectivity when the arguments that favor it are objective. I don't want to derail this thread too much, so I might start up a new one if you're interested in discussing this further.

This moves us back to the question of why a person would bring a child into the world if they knew the child was going to suffer, and the answer there ends with the point that people aren't rational, and the choices they make aren't always made by some ethical algorithm.

As for God, I don't know why that's being brought into the equation unless this thread is really about God. To me the idea of God is so incoherent that it's not really worth discussing.

Many atheists see the problem of suffering as a knock-down blow to the existence of a perfect, all-knowing, infinitely loving God. In countless threads on this forum and others, they will respond to Christian apologists who insist that this world is the best one God could have invented by asking why God decided to invent the world to begin with. If he couldn't make this glorious creation without (to borrow Stephen Fry's example) bone cancer in children, how about just leaving everything as it was and not making such a dubious exchange? It's a common reply to Christian theology about God's motives. I'm curious as to why this same reasoning is never applied to the terrestrial variety of creationism, namely the creation of a new human. Of course, I'd also like to hear an answer to the religious angle, but so far none has been forthcoming.