Did God Create the Best Possible Universe?

[wmw]

Keep in mind that the Catholic Church doesn’t believe slavery is inherently wrong.
newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

False, working against it slowly rather than an immediate abolition is not a determination of believing that it is not “inherently wrong”.

From the very source you provide:

From the beginning, however, as is shown elsewhere in this article, the Church exerted a steady powerful pressure for the immediate amelioration of the condition of the individual slave, and for the ultimate abolition of a system which, even in its mildest form, could with difficulty be reconciled with the spirit of the Gospel and the doctrine that all men are brothers in that Divine sonship which knows no distinction of bond and free.

 

[wmw]

One troubling implication was ridiculed by Voltaire:

In other words, if this world is in fact the best possible, then any action, even ones we perceive as evil, are actually an integral part of why the world is the best.

In other words, a world in which you never sinned couldn’t be better than the best of all possible worlds. This is the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, your never sinning would make the world worse. Therefore, your sin was actually good for the world.

Now, you might suppose that this is the ONLY possible world and therefore tautologically the best. However, that would make the world a necessary entity, which would have implications for some proofs of God.

I think there is a distinction that I’ve should have made from the start and this is a great reminder. Thanks!

The world is the best possible world in terms of God’s choices including creating us with free will. Once free will is established sin enters the world and God can reduce the suffering of the sinful actions only to a limited extent. Though He is also the Master of turning evil to good some evil remains. Even the original sin forces God’s hand in allowing us to build under landslides, or not build well enough to withstand an earthquake, etc. We are separated from the Garden of Eden where all is made safe.

In terms of OUR choices we are free to make it a miserable place though it is still under the guidance of the Author of history to be best possible world carrying the burden of our faults and original sin made under the necessary good of free will.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think there is a distinction that I’ve should have made from the start and this is a great reminder. Thanks!

The world is the best possible world in terms of God’s choices including creating us with free will. Once free will is established sin enters the world and God can reduce the suffering of the sinful actions only to a limited extent. Even the original sin forces God’s hand in allowing us to build under landslides, or not build well enough to withstand an earthquake, etc. We are separated from the Garden of Eden where all is made safe.

In terms of OUR choices we are free to make it a miserable place though it is still under the guidance of the Author of history to be best possible world carrying the burden of our faults and original sin made under the necessary good of free will.

Not all suffering is due to free choices.

 

[wmw]

Not all suffering is due to free choices.

False, in the sense that we have lost the guidance of God though our loss of Eden. It is a choice Adam and Eve made that includes the death and suffering you say is not due to free choice, but the original sin was a free choice.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

False, working against it slowly rather than an immediate abolition is not a determination of believing that it is not “inherently wrong”.

From the very source you provide:

Obviously a Catholic source will paint the Catholic position in the best possible light. I supplied other sources which call into question the Encyclopedia’s interpretation (e.g. the church excommunicating priests who decried the treatment of slaves and called for their release.)

Why isn’t the church working slowly against abortion instead of calling for immediate abolition?

 

[Neoplatonist]

This can’t be the best possible universe, though, right, because Heaven is better still. ?] It must be spatio-temporal in some sense, else having resurrected bodies becomes a strange puzzle.

 

[tonyrey]

This can’t be the best possible universe, though, right, because Heaven is better still. ?]

The OP is referring to a physical universe.

It must be spatio-temporal in some sense, else having resurrected bodies becomes a strange puzzle.

Resurrected bodies are no problem for those who believe in the glorified body of the risen Christ that reflects the infinite power of God’s love.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Sure, but does it necessarily follow that Heaven is not a universe as well, and that it is not a better one in some respects than this one?

I didn’t say resurrected bodies are a problem per se, so I don’t quite see how your response connects. I said it becomes puzzling when we try to say Heaven is not a universe.

Fine, let’s set that aside: will this universe be made better in the second coming? Will it not be perfected? If so, then how are we to make sense of the claim that it is already as good as possible?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Resurrected bodies are no problem for those who believe in the glorified body of the risen Christ that reflects the infinite power of God’s love.

That’s some fine hand waving you’re doing, but “believers believe it” is hardly a real solution to the problem.

 

[bmonk]

I think there is a distinction that I’ve should have made from the start and this is a great reminder. Thanks!

The world is the best possible world in terms of God’s choices including creating us with free will. Once free will is established sin enters the world and God can reduce the suffering of the sinful actions only to a limited extent. Though He is also the Master of turning evil to good some evil remains. Even the original sin forces God’s hand in allowing us to build under landslides, or not build well enough to withstand an earthquake, etc. We are separated from the Garden of Eden where all is made safe.

In terms of OUR choices we are free to make it a miserable place though it is still under the guidance of the Author of history to be best possible world carrying the burden of our faults and original sin made under the necessary good of free will.

Having followed (I hope) the various arguments, I find this best describes my own position–that God created it good, but (for God’s own reasons) included free will, which means that sin is a possibility. And God will not remove the gift of free will so freely given to us, even if it means we misuse it and bring evil into the world.

That said, this whole thread reminds me of the old distinction:
The Optimist is very much convinced that this is the best of all possible worlds.
The Pessimist is very much afraid that this is the best of all possible worlds.

 

[tonyrey]

That’s some fine hand waving you’re doing, but “believers believe it” is hardly a real solution to the problem.

Your discourteous reference to “some fine hand waving” is irrelevant since it overlooks the fact that I was replying to a believer, not to an unbeliever…

It would be far more to the point if you had attempted to refute the following statements:

With respect the question is not whether it is a good thing to create people with an allegedly disordered condition but whether a world without them is feasible in an immensely complex system developing according to the laws of nature. If there were no limit to divine intervention it would be evident to everyone that a benevolent power is controlling events.

It is unrealistic to expect every individual in this world to have the same advantages and disadvantages. Inequality is an inevitable consequence of being born in a physical world where we are subject to “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. There is a considerable element of chance within the framework of order and Design.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Look at the story of Job, even. What core lesson is there in that story if not “God can do whatever he wants to us, and we have to have faith in him no matter what.” God could make us all into Jobes, and fill the world with suffering, and we would still have to believe it was the best possible world.

If all the world were miserable, God would be a monster.

“Yes, please” doesn’t help me at all. What are you? It would help to know.

Are you pleading that God has a dark side?

Or are you pleading that that the stories of Job, Abraham and even Jesus, are proofs that there is no God?

Atheist? Agnostic? Deist? Satanist? What?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If all the world were miserable, God would be a monster.

“Yes, please” doesn’t help me at all. What are you? It would help to know.

Are you pleading that God has a dark side?

Or are you pleading that that the stories of Job, Abraham and even Jesus, are proofs that there is no God?

Atheist? Agnostic? Deist? Satanist? What?

As I’ve said previously, I know that in debates like this, religious people would much rather attack my beliefs (or employ a sort of tu quoque) than defend their own. The best defense is a good offense, so to speak. Therefore I will not announce my own beliefs to avoid that sort of derailment.

There are a few issues I’ve been pointing out so far:

1. We don’t really know what God’s definition of “best” is. You are correct, that if the world was miserable, all of our conceptions of morality would declare God to be a monster. However, we have no reason to suspect that our conceptions of morality are even relevant to this situation. God is defined as good, so if he had created a world of only suffering, that world would be good, and in fact it could even be the best.
2. If we establish that God must have created the best possible world (even if we don’t know the criteria that determine what is best) then we have to grapple with the problem that evil exists in the best possible world. “Free will” is often waived around as a possible answer, but I will point out that sinless free-will-having people are obviously possible (e.g. Mary.) The existence of evil leads to weird conclusions like: if you hadn’t committed some particular sin, then the world would no longer be the best possible world. Therefore, avoiding that sin would have actually made the world worse.
3. If we instead claim that God did not create the best possible world according to his own criteria, then we have more troubling problems. It would seem that God, if he in fact loves us and is benevolent, make the best possible world for us. The fact that he didn’t suggest that he doesn’t actually love us because he doesn’t want what is best for us.
4. If we claim God had no criteria in mind when creating this world so there could be no best world, then we have the problem of “why did God make this particular world at all?” It seems like this sort of claim would violate the principle of sufficient reason, that God would not really have any reason to preferentially pick this world over any other possible world (argument #3 has this problem as well.)

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Your discourteous reference to “some fine hand waving” is irrelevant since it overlooks the fact that I was replying to a believer, not to an unbeliever…

That is a strange claim. So you’re saying that when you are talking to a believer, the statement:

Resurrected bodies are no problem for those who believe in the glorified body of the risen Christ that reflects the infinite power of God’s love.

is true, but if you had been talking to a non-believer, the statement would have been false?

With respect the question is not whether it is a good thing to create people with an allegedly disordered condition but whether a world without them is feasible in an immensely complex system developing according to the laws of nature. If there were no limit to divine intervention it would be evident to everyone that a benevolent power is controlling events.

This is a silly objection. Why would it be a problem if it were evident to everyone that a benevolent power is controlling events? Also, it is a fundamental teaching of Catholicism that we are all created with a disordered condition (i.e. original sin) and that it is feasible for God to create people without that disordered condition (i.e. Mary.)

It is unrealistic to expect every individual in this world to have the same advantages and disadvantages. Inequality is an inevitable consequence of being born in a physical world where we are subject to “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. There is a considerable element of chance within the framework of order and Design.

Inequality and chance are fine, I don’t think anyone would seriously make the claim “this isn’t the best possible world because people are not universally uniform.”

 

[Tomdstone]

As I’ve said previously, I know that in debates like this, religious people would much rather attack my beliefs (or employ a sort of tu quoque) than defend their own. The best defense is a good offense, so to speak. Therefore I will not announce my own beliefs to avoid that sort of derailment.

There are a few issues I’ve been pointing out so far:

1. We don’t really know what God’s definition of “best” is. You are correct, that if the world was miserable, all of our conceptions of morality would declare God to be a monster. However, we have no reason to suspect that our conceptions of morality are even relevant to this situation. God is defined as good, so if he had created a world of only suffering, that world would be good, and in fact it could even be the best.
2. If we establish that God must have created the best possible world (even if we don’t know the criteria that determine what is best) then we have to grapple with the problem that evil exists in the best possible world. “Free will” is often waived around as a possible answer, but I will point out that sinless free-will-having people are obviously possible (e.g. Mary.) The existence of evil leads to weird conclusions like: if you hadn’t committed some particular sin, then the world would no longer be the best possible world. Therefore, avoiding that sin would have actually made the world worse.
3. If we instead claim that God did not create the best possible world according to his own criteria, then we have more troubling problems. It would seem that God, if he in fact loves us and is benevolent, make the best possible world for us. The fact that he didn’t suggest that he doesn’t actually love us because he doesn’t want what is best for us.
4. If we claim God had no criteria in mind when creating this world so there could be no best world, then we have the problem of “why did God make this particular world at all?” It seems like this sort of claim would violate the principle of sufficient reason, that God would not really have any reason to preferentially pick this world over any other possible world (argument #3 has this problem as well.)

I don’t see how this world, that we have now, could be the best possible world, at least if you accept the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; however, I am not sure that this demands that God does not exist.
One reason I do not think it is the best possible world, is that according to RC teaching, (at least as I understand it), homosexuality is a disordered condition (Of course, not everyone would accept this RC teaching and perhaps this is not an infallible and irreformable teaching. But suppose that the teaching is true - that is the hypothesis that I am assuming). God could have created a world where no one would have this “disorder”, and therefore, a better world.
This argument would fail, of course, if you do not accept the hypothesis. And perhaps there are good reasons to reject the hypothesis.
Another reason, is that there is too much evil and suffering. I suppose that you could argue that this is due to original sin and free will, but some suffering is not dependent on anyone’s free will, but just happens because of natural causes. Take for example, a husband who dies because of a heart attack and the wife is left alone with 6 children to feed and educate and care for.

 

[Cimachol]

My first thought upon reading the subject line was that those who think God did not create the best universe possible should try creating one themselves.

Part of the problem is that we see this universe from our limited, worldly perspective, not as God sees it, so our evaluation of it is always imperfect and incomplete. However, a few things occur to me:

1. God made human beings to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.
2. Love is something freely given. One cannot freely give something unless one also has the ability to choose not to give it. Therefore, for us to be capable of loving God, we must also be capable of choosing not to love Him.
3. Those who make the choice to love God will enter a place greater than this physical universe – Heaven. In order for Heaven to be perfect, it must contain no sin, and its denizens must choose to love God. Therefore, those who have chosen not to love God must be excluded, or Heaven would not be Heaven.
4. God created the best possible universe FOR THE PURPOSE of giving us the opportunity to ultimately know, love and serve Him and ultimately be happy with Him forever in Heaven.

Another thought occurs to me:

1. God is the greatest good.
2. Nothing God creates is as great as He.
3. Everything that is created, arguably, “could be better” in the sense that it is not as great as God, HOWEVER
4. … The creations of God are not SUPPOSED to be as great as He. The creations are what they are intended to be, and are therefore good, even if they are not equal to God in goodness.
5. A thing does not have to be the same or even equal to another thing in order to be good. For example, a rabbit may be a perfectly good rabbit, but it will never be lion. A lion will never be man, created in the image and likeness of God. Man will never be God, Christ being the only exception.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

JapaneseKappa;
2. If we establish that God must have created the best possible world (even if we don’t know the criteria that determine what is best) then we have to grapple with the problem that evil exists in the best possible world. "

Does God love each and every one of us as he loves himself? Can God love us more than he loves himself? Here is a simplistic yet profound way to test the power of the greatest commandments, If you choose to read further then search for something greater than I have written.

Did God have a complete plan for the creation of everything, did he think ahead? Were Christ’s life, death and resurrection planned before the creation of the universe began?
To search for a deeper meaning, was Christ freely given the choice to accept his sacrifice before the creation of the universe began?
What purpose can be so great, that it would compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance the suffering of mankind and that his son would die?
Would it be to forgive the sins of mankind, or can there be something greater?

Challenge your mind to find a greatest good purpose for creation; by searching for answers to three questions.

What greatest thing can God create?
God could create all the stars and planets of the universe; he then becomes God the builder.
God could create a whole variety of life with almost no intelligence like plants; he now becomes God the gardener’ God could create life with more intelligence like the animal kingdom. He now becomes God the farmer. God could create life in his own image, a life that could understand him. He now become God the Father. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image, Does the greatest thing that God creates, depend on the relationship that he can have with them?

What greatest purpose can God have to create children in his own image?
Could love be the greatest reason for God to create children?
Could the ultimate God be a God who loves in the greatest way? God the Father willingly loves all of mankind as he loves HIMSELF.
Can there be any greater reason to create children, even for God; can God love us more than he loves himself? In a way, God loves us more than he loves himself, because he sent his Son to die for us. In a contradicting way, God loves himself more than us, because he is the greatest being in the universe and retains the power of heaven or hell over us. We can never have the wisdom to understand the fullness of God’s love during our lifetime, but to dare to think that God loves each and every one of us as he loves himself is indeed a profound thought. When you ask the question; why did Christ say they are the greatest commandment, can it possibly be because they are greatest for God also?

To find a greatest purpose for all God’s children.
What greatest purpose could God set for humanity? Would it be for everyone to turn to His kind of religion and pray the way that he stipulates, or would it be to banish poverty, gain intellectual superiority, conquer sickness and death, and subdue the universe or is there more?
If the greatest reason God could have to create mankind, is to love us, as he loves himself, then God could create mankind, with the freedom to return God’s love
All of mankind to be created with the freedom to love God the creator unconditionally, are we given the greatest commandment as a guide for this very purpose?
God willingly loves everyone as he loves himself; do we also need this same freedom to love everyone in the same way, so that the truth can be complete for God and mankind.
All of mankind, to be created with the freedom to love their neighbour; as they love themselves unconditionally; are we given the second greatest commandment as a guide?
Is this how God wants his children to be one? He wants us to love each other as we love ourselves, despite our differences.
Could the greatest commandments be a Greatest and Ultimate Truth?

John 15 – As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.

If our greatest purpose for creation is to live by the greatest commandments, then this freedom to love also gives us the choice to do both good and evil. Are the greatest commandments powerful enough, to compel God to create the universe and life, knowing in advance the costs involved?
We can marvel at the great attention to detail that is evident in everything from the microscopic cells of life and right up to the giant structures of galaxies. Can you find any greater purpose for all this to exist? Challenge the above statements in your mind in an honest way, test them against any religious beliefs, and test them against any form of logic.
This is only a collection of words to challenge the mind to think, I do not pretend to understand the meaning, or to make any claims of truth from these words. They are written without any qualifications, authority, or any conscious revelations from God. If you have found any inspiration then please feel free to pass these words onto others who may also pray, meditate and challenge these words further. I do not wish to make any claims for copyright; so you are free to use these words in any way you choose. My hopes are that they may inspire unity, greater interfaith relations and world peace in some way.

Blessings

Eric

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As I’ve said previously, I know that in debates like this, religious people would much rather attack my beliefs (or employ a sort of tu quoque) than defend their own. The best defense is a good offense, so to speak. Therefore I will not announce my own beliefs to avoid that sort of derailment.

1. If we establish that God must have created the best possible world (even if we don’t know the criteria that determine what is best) then we have to grapple with the problem that evil exists in the best possible world. “Free will” is often waived around as a possible answer, but I will point out that sinless free-will-having people are obviously possible (e.g. Mary.) The existence of evil leads to weird conclusions like: if you hadn’t committed some particular sin, then the world would no longer be the best possible world. Therefore, avoiding that sin would have actually made the world worse.

This is sort of like entering the arena with an unfair advantage, isn’t it? I suppose you are entitled to hide behind your convictions so that you cannot be challenged for them, but then you are going to be on the offensive only because you don’t have to be on defensive. No football team I know of believes that is a good strategy.

Well, actually four people at first created sinless. Adam, Eve, Mary, Jesus.

So two of the four sinned and brought all the rest of us down with them. The other two strove to bring us up again to righteousness.

I think that is the best of all possible worlds, where you have offensive and defensive teams against the devil and his works. The defensive team (Adam and Eve) failed to hold the line and the devil scored; the offensive team (The Catholic Church) is struggling to score and win, but the game is never over until it’s over.

 

[Achilles6129]

My first thought upon reading the subject line was that those who think God did not create the best universe possible should try creating one themselves.

Part of the argument is that God could have created a universe where Adam/Eve freely choose to obey his commands and not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Would you agree with that? If so, why wouldn’t God create that universe?

 

[davidv]

Part of the argument is that God could have created a universe where Adam/Eve freely choose to obey his commands and not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Would you agree with that?

No.

If so, why wouldn’t God create that universe?

Because it is not possible. What kind of free will is one that can only choose obedience?