Out of all possible worlds, is the actual world the most perfect?

To people who believe in God, is believing that this is the most perfect world a necessary part of your faith? Why or why not?

I'm interesting in hearing peoples' takes on this.

Personally, I do not think that this is the most perfect world, mainly because I can't imagine that the exclusion of even one rape or murder wouldn't make this world better. I'm posing this question because, in the course of discussing this with quite a few religious folks, they seem to unilaterally claim that this world is the most perfect (only an underachieving God would create a less-than-perfect world).

11/12/2006 11:43:28 PM

Huh?

Anyway,

Quote :

"To people who believe in God, is believing that this is the most perfect world a necessary part of your faith? Why or why not?"

No. The Bible tells us that the world has sin, therefore it is not perfect. So it is not necessary for our faith and belief.

11/12/2006 11:47:22 PM

wtf cheese-overlord invader

11/12/2006 11:47:50 PM

ever heard of free will?

11/12/2006 11:48:12 PM

Quote :

"No. The Bible tells us that the world has sin, therefore it is not perfect. So it is not necessary for our faith and belief."

Well naturally it's not perfect, but is it the most perfect? What I mean to say is, out of every possible way that God could have created the Universe, could our world have been created any better than this one?

11/12/2006 11:49:07 PM

why would a religious person need to believe that?

11/13/2006 12:02:18 AM

perhaps it is perfect because we are allowed to make it imperfect

or did i just blow your mind

11/13/2006 12:04:59 AM

Quote :

"why would a religious person need to believe that?"

I didn't claim they did.

Some people believe that if this world could have been created better, that God is somehow an underachiever (which isn't part of his perfect nature).

Quote :

"perhaps it is perfect because we are allowed to make it imperfect or did i just blow your mind"

That's a pretty interesting view. (didn't quite blow my mind though, sorry)

[Edited on November 13, 2006 at 12:13 AM. Reason : .]

11/13/2006 12:12:49 AM

Quote :

"perhaps it is perfect because we are allowed to make it imperfect or did i just blow your mind"

^idk, i dont even consider that interesting...thats just sounds really dumb

11/13/2006 12:16:28 AM

Well the idea that he conveyed is that a world with free will would be more perfect than any world without it.

It's not such a bad idea. However, to what extent could God effect a world with free will? I could still probably think of a bunch of things that would make this world better, even if God couldn't directly affect anybody's mental content.

11/13/2006 12:18:40 AM

shit, i almost started thinking about what i wrote

11/13/2006 12:23:20 AM

Just off the cuff, I'd have to say that from my particular religion's point of view and depending on how you define "world," heaven is the most perfect one and this is therefore obviously not. Thus you might claim that God is a bastard for putting us all in the shitty world, but He is not "underacheiving" or anything because He did create a perfect world.

If you want to take a broader view of "world" and include both heaven and Earth into that, then one could make the argument that the most perfect world would necessitate free will (and thus rampant imperfection), as the alternative would be a world of slavery.

11/13/2006 12:31:45 AM

I'm coming at this from a deist view with a transcendental slant that I'm trying to reconcile in.

Quote :

"only an underachieving God would create a less-than-perfect world"

This has been a central pilar of what I have believed for quite some time. However, at the same time, I think that while God may have created a perfect world, we are still capable of altering it through a free-will that is at odds with nature. All is not predestined, or else we would not have to work to preserve it. Thus, for me, being spiritual means recognizing the perfection of creation as controlled by the divine and actively seeking to protect such creation from the folly of humans. you might say that the divine should be greater than the folly of humans, but that is where free will comes into play. What we do to protect creation should be in-line with the desires of the divine.

To answer the question: yes, it is perfect, but we have to actively seek to preserve it as so. From it, we may draw inspiration and peace.

[Edited on November 13, 2006 at 12:43 AM. Reason : .]

11/13/2006 12:39:15 AM

o shit, not this again

ok McDanger, this is how I see it. there's a big difference between the most perfect world to us and the most perfect world for us. obviously, God, being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, would be bound by His very nature to make the most perfect world. so the question remains, is it that this world perfect to us or that it is perfect for us that you are asking

11/13/2006 1:15:38 AM

God =/= underachiever.

11/13/2006 1:56:21 AM

Hooray, It's like I'm back in Early Modern Philosophy.

I think the real problem I had was in deciding that God was omnibenevolent. It was asserted to me in all my philosophy classes, but I never got any good, logical reasoning for it. I was told "that's the nature of God" but I don't see it. Omnibenevolence has been used to "disprove" the existence of God a number of times, but I take issue with the tenet altogether. Anyone else?

11/13/2006 7:40:26 AM

it's all beyond all human comprehension so i don't spend my time worrying about it

11/13/2006 10:04:10 AM

mysterious ways my friend, mysterious ways

11/13/2006 10:07:39 AM

LIFT MY DAYS

LIGHT UP MY LIGHTS

LOVE

11/13/2006 10:12:39 AM

The devil is god-like and no benevolent.

11/13/2006 10:15:16 AM

Quote :

"Just off the cuff, I'd have to say that from my particular religion's point of view and depending on how you define "world," heaven is the most perfect one and this is therefore obviously not. Thus you might claim that God is a bastard for putting us all in the shitty world, but He is not "underacheiving" or anything because He did create a perfect world."

Let's say you get to heaven, the perfect world, and you find out that your mother isn't there (she went to hell). Do you not think heaven would be improved with your mother there as well? Or is it really perfection for your mother to be damned, in this hypothetical case?

Quote :

"If you want to take a broader view of "world" and include both heaven and Earth into that, then one could make the argument that the most perfect world would necessitate free will (and thus rampant imperfection), as the alternative would be a world of slavery."

Did Jesus have free will? Could he have possibly failed in his mission?

Quote :

"All is not predestined, or else we would not have to work to preserve it."

If we didn't have free will, how would that change the amount of work we really do?

Quote :

"Thus, for me, being spiritual means recognizing the perfection of creation as controlled by the divine and actively seeking to protect such creation from the folly of humans."

Not to be over-critical, but I personally think it's not such a good thing to define away all of our good traits into God. Part of the reason I resent many religious interpretations of the world is because they sell humans short.

Quote :

"ok McDanger, this is how I see it. there's a big difference between the most perfect world to us and the most perfect world for us. obviously, God, being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, would be bound by His very nature to make the most perfect world. so the question remains, is it that this world perfect to us or that it is perfect for us that you are asking"

So every last occurance is absolutely necessary to the perfection of this world? I can think of plenty of things that could be changed or prevented by God such as to make this a more perfect world. Technically God does step in time to time to ensure this (through miracles). What's one more miracle?

Quote :

"I think the real problem I had was in deciding that God was omnibenevolent. It was asserted to me in all my philosophy classes, but I never got any good, logical reasoning for it. I was told "that's the nature of God" but I don't see it. Omnibenevolence has been used to "disprove" the existence of God a number of times, but I take issue with the tenet altogether. Anyone else?"

I think there are plenty of problems with omnipotence as well. The problem about extending qualities like benevolence and power to infinity is that it makes no sense.

11/13/2006 11:11:59 AM

Quote :

"Let's say you get to heaven, the perfect world, and you find out that your mother isn't there"

The Orthodox position holds that getting into heaven involves an element of theosis, union with God, which would transcend mortal attachments, preferences, and understandings. You wouldn't miss your mom or want her up there, not least because you would attain a complete and total grasp of what she did and how wrong it was, far beyond our puny efforts to understand morality.

Quote :

"Did Jesus have free will? Could he have possibly failed in his mission?"

God is a weird case. He does have free will, but because He is all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good, there's always several things he can do, but only the one thing He will do (even if predicting that one thing is an exercise in futility because of our limited understanding). That's the only way I know to explain it.

11/13/2006 11:52:32 AM

Why exactly does "he" only do one thing in any given situatuion and why/how are you certain of this?

[Edited on November 13, 2006 at 11:56 AM. Reason : "]

11/13/2006 11:56:30 AM

Quote :

"The Orthodox position holds that getting into heaven involves an element of theosis, union with God, which would transcend mortal attachments, preferences, and understandings. You wouldn't miss your mom or want her up there, not least because you would attain a complete and total grasp of what she did and how wrong it was, far beyond our puny efforts to understand morality. "

After this process of theosis though, what happens next? We wouldn't be "ourselves" for any practical purpose. That doesn't sound like any fun, like how an afterlife is typically portrayed. Not to mention, if mom is not in Heaven, where is she? Does she get this theosis process too? How can someone that has experience the knowledge of God also percieve the concept of pain/punishment? What's next for her? It would seem that repentence would come easily to someone who has experienced God, which would justify them a place in Heaven. But this would also defeat the purpose of desiring people to be religious in their present life.

11/13/2006 12:02:48 PM

Quote :

"Why exactly does "he" only do one thing in any given situatuion and why/how are you certain of this?"

I've already explained this, repeating myself will do neither of us any good.

Quote :

"After this process of theosis though, what happens next? We wouldn't be "ourselves" for any practical purpose. That doesn't sound like any fun, like how an afterlife is typically portrayed."

Moron, I know you're not stupid. So why did you say this?

Apparently I won't be able to get around repeating myself: theosis would transcend mortal attachments, preferences, and understandings. Having acheived unity with God presumably will put paid your various petty mortal desires and motivations (like fun, amusement, curiosity, hunger, horniness, etc). It doesn't sound like fun because you're a puny human.

Quote :

" Not to mention, if mom is not in Heaven, where is she? Does she get this theosis process too?"

She's in hell, and no, she obviously doesn't acheive union with God. In fact, she is completely cast away from God, not only lacking union, but the exposure that people have even in life. Nothing. No sign of God.

I said very plainly "getting into heaven involves an element of theosis." Not "dying involves it" or "going to any afterlife involves it." Heaven. Only.

11/13/2006 12:38:26 PM

Grumpy -- what content does one's soul have, then? If the brain carries memories, preferences, and personality? Since our soul is our identity and what is preserved for heaven, what is the content of our soul?

11/13/2006 12:53:02 PM

I don't know. I don't even know if memories come with the soul, though that's what would make sense to me.

11/13/2006 1:12:29 PM

Quote :

" theosis would transcend mortal attachments, preferences, and understandings. Having acheived unity with God presumably will put paid your various petty mortal desires and motivations (like fun, amusement, curiosity, hunger, horniness, etc). It doesn't sound like fun because you're a puny human. "

I always took the "we couldn't understand" to be a cop out people use to justify religion. If there was no point in thinking/talking about it, then philosophy wouldn't exist. The ultimate result of all human desires is to become god-like, so I think trying to think what god would think is valid.

However, the very concept of "theosis" is nebulous enough that it wouldn't be sufficient to explore it in the context of this thread.

Also, I just assumed that if someone is dying and going to Hell, that they would be given some justification of why they were there, which would mean given the perspective of god of why they aren't in Heaven. I suppose though, if you choose to believe in heaven/hell, that someone can be casted in to hell without explanation.

11/13/2006 1:19:00 PM

Your soul is the most important thing. Your human body is what causes you to experience depression, sadness and pain. On the big scale of things your mother is not that important. God is the most important thing to you. Your mother is just really important to you as human. If your mother turned away from God you should choose God over your mothe. If your mother is not in heaven when you get there she could still be in purgatory.

Only some saints go directly to heaven and most everybody else goes to purgatory. In purgatory you feel the pain through a punishment for all the sins you commited. The more sinful of a life you lived, the longer and more painful your visit to purgatory is. Because of this, everybody is there for a different ammount of time. Someone really bad is obviously going to there a lot longer than someone really good. Someone like Mother Teresa might not go at all.

So you could in fact beat your mother to heaven, or somebody from the year 1500 because the aferlife is eternity and purgatory could be really long.

11/13/2006 1:23:31 PM

I would say this is the most perfect world possible because you and others won't ever be able to agree on a world that is, how shall we say...more perfect. For instance, you state that rapes and murders could be done away with but in reality that would not be possible without altering the nature of humanity.

Furthermore, destruction is the breeding ground of improvement. Without certain death and the cold calculus of competition we wouldn't even be a species today.

11/13/2006 2:09:30 PM

Quote :

"Out of all possible worlds, is the actual world the most perfect? To people who believe in God, is believing that this is the most perfect world a necessary part of your faith? Why or why not?"

I think I may not understand exactly what you mean by perfect. Is it perfect for me? Or perfect for every living thing? Or just perfect for humans? Or perfect for a certain religious group? Or is this perfect for God?

I would hope that if God did indeed create the world, then he created his perfect world. The word God for me carries a connotation of perfectness which humans can never achieve, so it would seem impossible for me for an entity such as God to create something that is not perfect. So are humans and the world perfect? Maybe not from our own point of view.

But hey all this is just coming from an atheist, so none of this bothers me.

11/13/2006 2:12:18 PM

READ A FUCKING PHILOSOPHY BOOK GODDAMNIT.

THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN DEBATED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY INTELLIGENT.

THE ONLY THING YOU'RE INTERESTED IN IS GETTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL EVERYONE WHAT YOU THINK.

CHRIST ALMIGHTY.

11/13/2006 2:17:00 PM

Kyle, who's that directed to? The whole thread or someone in particular.

In my case, I have read the whole argument from a philosophical perspective, but I never got past this whole "God has to be omnibenevolent" thing. I was hoping McDanger or someone else who's pretty skilled in philosophy could help.

11/13/2006 2:30:32 PM

Maybe it's perfect, but only because you believe it's imperfect.

11/13/2006 2:36:37 PM

is it raining donuts?

IS IT?

11/13/2006 2:38:52 PM

Quote :

"READ A FUCKING PHILOSOPHY BOOK GODDAMNIT. THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN DEBATED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY INTELLIGENT. THE ONLY THING YOU'RE INTERESTED IN IS GETTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL EVERYONE WHAT YOU THINK. CHRIST ALMIGHTY."

Way to contribute nothing to the thread. The point here wasn't to tread on new grounds. If you had any reading comprehension at all, you would have understood from the first post that this is just about what people think.

Hahaha "read a philosophy book." Do you have any idea how fucking stupid you sound? What kind of philosophy, exactly? Don't be a fucking dope, I'll wager quite a few people in this thread alone have read a lot more philosophy than you. I'll wager I've read more philosophy over the past month than you have in the past four years.

Quote :

"In my case, I have read the whole argument from a philosophical perspective, but I never got past this whole "God has to be omnibenevolent" thing. I was hoping McDanger or someone else who's pretty skilled in philosophy could help."

I'm not sure what to make about omnibenevolence. I think even a casually reading of the Bible would turn up that God is not omnibenevolent.

[Edited on November 13, 2006 at 2:45 PM. Reason : Seriously, the thread goes well and then "Kyle" graces us with his stupidity.]

11/13/2006 2:43:56 PM

my point trumps all

11/13/2006 2:45:20 PM

I'm hearing a lot of statements about point of view. If I'm doing this stance justice, it seems to be stating the following:

The world really IS perfect (or the most perfect), but given our perspective and finite natures, we just mistake it for being imperfect (or less perfect than it could be).

If this is so, then I pose this question: How exactly do the evils in the world amass to any supernatural good?

11/13/2006 2:48:50 PM

do you deny the perfect goodness of the donut?

11/13/2006 2:51:26 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what to make about omnibenevolence. I think even a casually reading of the Bible would turn up that God is not omnibenevolent."

Yeah, Its quite a strange idea. Also, given my feelings on determinism, I say that this world cannot be the most perfect world. I say that because if this were the most perfect possible world, then it would have to be a deterministic one. I don't have fantastic philosophical logic that disproves determinism, but I don't believe in it, so I would have to say the closest to a perfect world argument I would accept is that there are an infinite number of equally perfect worlds and this happens to be the one we are experiencing right now.

11/13/2006 2:57:08 PM

Quote :

"I always took the "we couldn't understand" to be a cop out people use to justify religion. If there was no point in thinking/talking about it, then philosophy wouldn't exist."

There are those things we can understand, and, when assuming the existence of an essentially infinite God, there are inevitably those things that we cannot. We should probably talk about all of them, which is exactly what we're doing now.

That said, I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. This is one of those things that is certainly possible for us to comprehend, although it isn't easy. A buddhist who has acheived enlightenment doesn't live what I suspect you would call a "fun" life from where you're sitting now, but can't you at least toy with the possibility that total inner peace and serenity might be better than fun? Mind you, I would have to say that even the enlightened one's position falls short of what union with God would entail, because it is imperfect, but it's a good place to start working from.

The long and the short of it is, you're a person, and you're not exactly Buddha. Neither are any of us on this form, or else we wouldn't be here. So we have attachments to all sorts of Earthly things. That's where your idea of "fun" comes from. Try to conceive of breaking all those attachments. Now, if having done that, you think, "Well that would suck," well, that's because you still have them.

Quote :

"Also, I just assumed that if someone is dying and going to Hell, that they would be given some justification of why they were there"

Why? If you're such a fuck-up that you're in hell, you aren't entitled to anything, including an explanation.

Quote :

"I think even a casually reading of the Bible would turn up that God is not omnibenevolent."

Obviously enough, I disagree. There's all sorts of various counterarguments. A parent who does nothing but shower their kids with gifts all the time is really doing something horrible with their kid. A parent who punishes them when they fuck up and rewards them when they do good and otherwise teaches lessons is the benevolent one.

I can imagine the various counterarguments you'll throw at me but I'll wait until you do before I respond to it. I'd hate to be presumptuous.

11/13/2006 2:58:52 PM

Quote :

"If this is so, then I pose this question: How exactly do the evils in the world amass to any supernatural good?"

Well if there were no evil, then could there be good? Also is good merely the absence of evil, or is it something of its own? Also how do you define supernatural good?

11/13/2006 2:59:24 PM

Quote :

"How exactly do the evils in the world amass to any supernatural good?"

You could offer various answers. The evils are the result of our freedom and freedom is the greatest good; evils yield higher-order goods; evil is necessary for good to exist at all.

11/13/2006 3:02:11 PM

evil is the absents of good.

11/13/2006 3:07:45 PM

Quote :

""Also, I just assumed that if someone is dying and going to Hell, that they would be given some justification of why they were there""

It won't be a surprise. You have to knowingly turn away from God and choose "not God" and never be truly sorry about it to go to hell. I think you can also get frustrated in purgatory and choose "not God" while you're there.

[Edited on November 13, 2006 at 3:14 PM. Reason : fixed]

11/13/2006 3:10:33 PM

Voltaire makes a pretty good argument against this in 'Candide'. A good read. But then, he was just mad at Libniz.

The question itself implys that we have no control over this word. Its perfection or imperfection is determined by some outside force. I certainly would like to think that humans have the capacity to make this a (close to) perfect world, but your question doesn't allow that. Maybe it should be "out of all possible species, are we the most perfect?"

The fact that we can concieve a more perfect world places the blame of imperfection squarely on our shoulders. Rape and murder exist because we allow them to exist, we create them.

11/13/2006 3:22:14 PM

Quote :

"evil is the absents of good"

So if I am sitting on 40 during rush hour and I do not let the person in trying to merge, then I have done an evil deed? Then I would ask if that "evil" deed is just as evil as murder.

11/13/2006 3:22:45 PM

will someone please think of the righteousness of the donut?

why stay blind when the obvious is right before your eyes?

11/13/2006 3:24:03 PM

look at good compared to light.

not letting someone merge is like shade.

lying is like 5pm

assault is like midnight

and murder is like shut inside a dark closet

[Edited on November 13, 2006 at 3:29 PM. Reason : dark and evil dont exist. they are the absents of good and light]

11/13/2006 3:25:42 PM

Are you an elaborate joke, or are you seriously that stupid?

11/13/2006 3:26:17 PM