Leibniz - Best of all Possible Worlds Argument (Explained and Debated)

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into the works of Gottfried Leibniz and his best of all possible worlds argument as a solution to the problem of evil.

The problem of evil is a major problem for theists as there appears to be an inconsistency in the exists of an all powerful, all loving, all knowing God and the existence of evil and suffering. However the 17th Century philosopher Leibniz argued that even with all the evil and suffering this world is in fact the best possible world that God could have created, and so the problem of evil is not in fact a problem for theists.

Watch as the theory is explained and debated.

Check out our book...
Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the three main arguments for the existence of God; the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon...
Paperback:

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Religion" eBook, available on Amazon:

This script is also part of the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology, volume 1 "Philosophy of Religion" available on Amazon:

[PhilosophyVibe]

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Religion" eBook, available on Amazon:

Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the three main arguments for the existence of God; the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon...

This script is also part of the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology, volume 1 "Philosophy of Religion" available on Amazon:

[cadronpickett]

I think the interesting aspect of the argument is not whether we d or do not live in the best of all possible worlds, but whether we could ever tell if we did.

[bishoplouie]

Hello Philosophy Vibe, you guys are stellar please never stop making videos. I love how it is set up. First, you're very informative and clear. I love the way you guys talk, the pace at which you talk, and the animations. 10/10.

[cjortiz]

Obviously this is the best possible world because I'm really enjoying the vibe.

[ThestDukeDroklar]

I'm agnostic but have studied the Bible quite a bit and have given these issues considerable thought over the decades. I would say that "evil" is a direct result of free will. Can't have free will without evil occurring. I think this covers it all. The child starving is just another result of free will. More importantly, I would argue that the child dying of starvation is neither evil nor good. It is the inaction of others that is the evil act. That of course is our choice which is exercising our free will.

He says "I see no logical contradiction in eliminating famine and plague and considering that a better world". Oh really? Any of these things are part of nature and helps keep populations in check. Furthermore, with plagues and other diseases, it is part of evolution. These things strengthen the immune system of humanity as a whole and therefore prevent extinction. So, in his idea of a "more perfect world" mankind goes extinct. Not very perfect is it?

I would argue the same thing to answer the question of "Why does death exist". Evolution occurs over generations. A new mutation pops up that is beneficial in some way. In order for that to get inherited by the coming generations, that mutation must become the dominant variant in the gene pool. In order for that to occur, those that are of the older variant must stop flooding the gene pool with the less beneficial genes. If the old variants did not die off, the new variant would die out in one or two generations. What this means is that without death, evolution cannot function naturally and no life would have ever evolved. So, a world without death is a world without life... not exactly a more perfect world.

He also says "I see no logical contradiction in creating only good-natured humans that might have the option of doing evil but choose not to". Then that is not free will now is it? How can you force someone to make certain choices and maintain free will? This also answers the question of "why doesn't God reveal himself". And why would that make a difference? To get people to make choices out of fear? Then they are not exercising their free will and are now basically slaves to the free will of a God. Can't be truly free if you are ruled by another.

He says "the simplest feeble minds can conceive of a better world". Oh really? Well, above I just showed why his ideas for a "better world" actually destroy the world. Now, I do not consider this man to have a "feeble mind" so his statement is completely false. No, they could not and neither can you... or anyone else.

So his claims about disproving gods abilities through his previous argument is also false. He has only proven that he did not give the matter sufficient thought. Cause and effect, change one thing and there are ramifications that ripple throughout the whole system.

[Elkington]

2:13 How reassuring, let those who can take conciliation in that. After all, faith is at its strongest when one isn't too critical.

[atharali]

Thankyou I am a regular listener .
Your videos helped me alot

[denisedeboer]

Because we have "free will", then it our responsibility to change it by changing ourselves from within for the better . We can't change anything in this World for the better if we, ourselves, if we are still grappling with envy, anger, selfishness, self-loathing, Narcissism, gluttony, hatred, lack of empathy, etc. We, humanity must "grow up", and become emotionally & physically responsible ourselves first.

[thecaliforniamaniac]

As Mark Passio states, “the universe is working perfectly, it’s humans that are fucked up”.

[BiDrd]

I'm not sure I agree with the theistic argument or not. That would take more time to consider.

However, the rejection of the argument at the end is not really a strong counter argument. The last argument basically is an opinion how he personally doesn't see why it cannot be another way, but that would be an argument from incredulity, it would seem.

I do not think that the final argument in support of the atheistic side goes any further than showing how The atheist *prefers* to look at the situation, but that isn't necessarily a counter-argument.

On the other hand, although the theistic argument doesn't prove that this is the best possible world, it does make a valid point that it is possible, and that is the only point necessary to conclude that it does not necessarily follow that God doesn't exist because of the existence of evil.

[keefr]

Great video. I think what makes the argument of evil confusing is that people think (because of religion) that God is benevolent. I believe in God not in the religious sense but as in God being the original cause rather than some being who purposely created everything. The source of the light or the first thought that everything else stems from. If there is a 'creator' then I don't think that the creator has anything to do with the material world but rather is more like the chef that bakes the pie and then lets us eat it as a collective with our own free wills that are only free with regards to their interactions with everyone elses free will and the confines of a material world and the physical rules that must be followed by all material bodies contained within it. All of our experiences of love and evil and the feelings that we get as a result of those experiences are just our physical senses reacting to stimuli. I'm sure if there is any creator god and we are reincarnated over and over for eternity that god would not really be too concerned about any feelings each individual has during each one of many lives lived in the grand scheme of all existence. And if that isn't the case and there is no god then that too would make good, evil, love, suffering all irrelevant to a god that doesn't exist

[benjo]

Even if we accept Leibniz' Argument, the question still remains "Why create at all?". In Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan Fyodorovich says that even the necessary suffering of one single child would be enough to render creation injust and I tend to agree. A truly perfect God wouldn't create but being faced with creation, we know that the creator isn't God as he's not truly perfect (a non-creating God would be better) but simply a Gnostic demiurge.

[ashokmacho]

Love ur videos....also kindly bring leibniz pre established harmony

[NightDangerRPG]

The problem of Evil has always felt like a non-argument because it effectively boils down to "If God is real why doesn't he strip me of my agency?"

[danielanthony]

We are on the way to creating the best possible world
Look how far humanity has advanced in 100 years
Humanity will eventually build an almost Eden type Civilization
A city in a garden
Cities in the sky
Cities in space
Cities on other worlds

[Beegeezy]

3:57 Actually, mathematicians work with the concept of multiple infinities all of the time, so for the Source to contemplate himself would not be like a computer getting stuck doing calculations, but more like a dynamic system which is already totally conscious of its entirety being asked a question that it already knew was coming.

[HueyPNewton]

This post is in the vein of the question: can't there be a better possible world? It's my understanding that Leibniz offered the "best of all possible worlds" idea using his philosophy of compossibility, which from my understanding states that out of all the possible stuff that exists in reality there are certain configurations of that stuff that can possibly work together--even if it is in contradictory manner (ie compossible)--and other configurations that are not possible (incompossible). As a hypothetical of the latter, say there was a reality in which evil didn't exist but that mass also had features of having gravity and anti-gravity (there are probably better hypotheticals to draw on here), then it'd be impossible for that world to exist and so it doesn't. Doesn't this assume then that there is a finite amount of stuff that exists and god's role is arranging it in the best possible way. If that’s the case, wouldn't this be incompossible (:rimshot:) with the premise that god is omnipotent and thus could create more stuff to fit together a better possible world? I’m sure this has been addressed and this question is coming from someone who has never read Leibniz!

[ghanshamchandel]

Also, an argument that applies against all claims for Leibniz Optimism is the evil God hypothesis.
One can argue equally well that God chose this particular world such that it maximizes pain and suffering. God is the all powerful, all knowledgeable and most sadistic being and therefore he chose this particular world.

[frytor]

This is what the phylosophy is all about, dialetics, discution between opposite sides of view... Not just one theory being teach without being putted in the spotlight, like we have in most cases...

[DevinGarcia-yz]

Heaven is the best possible place to live in