@@jimliu2560... your free immortal soul is free to believe anything for any reason whether you are in Heaven or on earth... and whatever you freely choose to believe to act on that belief, you are always accountable for it... ...so, returning back to Heaven does not rely on your order or demand, but relies on what you freely choose to believe....
I don't believe that an optimist stays optimistic all their life, and the same with a pessimist. There are always ups and downs in life, and old age, sickness and death. If someone were to look at life throughout history objectively and collectively, then there is no possible way that anyone can say this is the best of all possible worlds. It's only when someone looks at it subjectively based on their present situation that their opinion will be positive or negative. But I don't believe that's the way to answer the question.
The purpose of life on Earth is to learn about and experience, good and evil, love and hate, a world with God and a world without God so you can make an informed choice about where you want to spend eternity, either with God or without Him. To quote the great philosopher, Yogi Berra, “If the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be” If the world were perfect the way the atheists imagine it should be, we wouldn’t be learning about good and evil.
Think how perverse you need to be to create a world with the sole purpose of teaching a brand-new creature, brought into existence from nothing, 'what evil is' 😂
@@marcoliberamente Think how dumb you need to be to not understand that in order for freedom to exist, it had to be that way... Don't ever change : you're already so perfect ! Ha ha ha... You're actually the only perfect thing in the whole creation. Ha ha ha...
God wants us to freely choose good over bad. Because in a world where only good exists, good doesn't really exists since there would be nothing to compare it to. If there's only day, day doesn't really exist. Day exists only if night exists as well. The world needs opposites in order for freedom to exist. The freedom to choose bad.
this world is full of injustice, sadness, fear, pain, suffering, but there is hope, all things end. when we die with a good merit. and become a perfect being above all else. and more than we suffering. it is God who suffers the most. so God will one day end all pain for himself and us.
Remember that possible worlds has always meant worlds that are not logically self-contradictory (Aristotle, Aquinas, etc.) The so-called "butterfly effect" derived from chaos theory in science and mathematics tells us that one can never be 100% certain of all of the long-term effects of a given action. But a hypothetical omniscient Creator who was outside or "beyond" time would not be so limited. So God would know ALL the ultimate consequences of the Creation. Whereas we cannot.
You seem to have a sound knowledge here. One question: R Swinburne said "Now God cannot create the best of all possible worlds. Any world he creates would be less good than some world he could create because more is better." Is that correct? I m not sure I understand why it should be. regards
I haven't listened to Swinburne's discussion, but I agree with you. I don't think it makes any sense to say more is better. A quantitative approach like that doesn't seem appropriate at all.@@jjcm3135
Leibnitz didn't understand Bible would be my answer, but at least it allowed Voltaire to mock something very simple that for some reason he didn't understand. Not sure why Plantinga isn't aware of Garden of Eden story? I thought these people were all intelligent😂 Adam and Eve choose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and Evil after God allows for free will, the world becomes corrupted (not best of possible worlds from a Biblical perspective).
I think and hope the World is still evolving. It is mind boggling how many bits of information the Universe is made and that it is all connected and interacting even beyond where we can see. Which is a long way ! 🔭 🌌
...there is no long way.... if you are driven by evolution beyond control, then you are no different than a clueless washer/dryer machine driven by electric current, no choice...
Is this world better than the one where Adan & Eve chose not to eat the forbidden fruit? If "Yes," then why were they punished for making the world better? If "No," then this isn't the best of all possible worlds.
...there was no Adama and Eve... it was a story written by imperfect men who tried to reenact our pasts that did not hapen on earth but happened in the Spiritual World....
"God" allowed for the universe. "God" allowed for a universe that could eventually result in conscious beings. "God" gave those beings free-will. The best possible world is an impossibility given our nature. It is always our task to make the world we have better.
... if GOD created free will, then GOD is all responsible for the evils that men do... You are teaching people to feel NO ACCOUNTABILITY, very irresponsible...
No... it is not the best. It's simply the first stage human evolution at self's level. This world can become better if humans create a world based on Permanent Values...
...this world can become better if NO ONE thinks that his/her Original Mama is Darwin's IGUANA coming from Unconscious Bigbang out of NOTHING... ... preaching evolution to our children is the worst form of Child ABUSE...
This sounds so interesting! What does it mean that this is the first stage of human evolution, and what does it mean that we are at the level of the self? Does the second stage involve the creation of a world based on Permanent Values, or something else entirely? How many stages are there? What are the Permanent Values?
@SheilaCarpenter-h2o Thanks for your post. Never thought someone will show interest in this post... glad you did it! I will try to explain very briefly. If you have further interest then I will recommend few books... Firstly, this world and our creation as humans with choice and intent have higher purpose. Each one of us has a self e.g. what I am writing here is thru expressing my self. This self of ours does not age e.g. our thoughts do not age but our brain does age! Hence no death at the level of our self. Secondly, our body is not going to evolve any further and has reached this state of being human and is there to help in the evolution of our self I.e. thru values we have a choice to either become better humans or worse ones. Choice is ours. However those of us who wish to become better, need to understand the latent potentials within us which need to come out. For example how good I can become as a human being? Thirdly, to become the best we need a value system which can serve as an external standard we we do not have inner guidance as we have choice and intent. It means growing our self under relative values will grow us relatively while developing under Permanent Values we will grow to a higher level. Permanent Values are those which do not change and remain the same for the first man on earth and the last man 9n earth. For example death is a Permanent value or human self is a permanent value or human accountability is a PV... so on I will leave it there... pl come back if you wish to know more...
@SheilaCarpenter-h2o Thanks for your post. I drafted a reply and thought posted it but not sure what happened to it? I am happy to explain it further... briefly, each one of us possesses choice and intent and have a self which revolves around our 'I'. Our sense of self remains with us even if we loose memory. Under man made systems we live under man made laws which are based on relative values e.g. might is right, divide and rule, relative justice, class system, discrimination of all kinds... Permanent Values are those which remain immutable and are equally applicable to first man and the last man e.g. our death, our accountability at self's level, no contradiction in word and deed, respect as a human being, equality at self's level... Our death comes to our body not to our self... where is the evidence? Please let me know and I will expand further...
I would think that as this universe evolves or any other universes, ...? It would make sense that if evolution is directly connected with knowledge, morality, wisdom, … then I could imagine that there would be a better world and including a better God at some point until a God is no longer necessary. And the best worlds would come into being or otherwise from this evolution. Unless everyone thinks we are at the pinnacle of any evolution in all aspects considered? I mean really, would you like to be still hunting game for survival and running away from things with sharp teeth and claws? Sounds kind of dangerous to me... not to mention dirty and unhealthy.
@@evaadam3635 I would still think these justified worries falls into the evolution of human beings mentioned. Whereas, because of the evolution state of these early human beings there was little that could be done to avoid issues brought on by nature or others over the hill for various reasons... In other words, the threat of force by these nuclear weapons used as war are in control of humans, but more than likely of a lower personal evolution than those who created them. This create these fears when focusing on unpeaceful and violent behaviors and more than likely from the God believers as well, as they seem to be well adapted to belligerency, at least from who controls the world currently. It is a choice today as opposed to other millenniums past on various issues out of one's control, that we have, peace or unpeace...
@@thewefactor1.... when you replace faith in a loving GOD with Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama to feel NO ACCOUNTABILITY, just evolving by accident to no fault of your own, you should not wonder why once a paradise earth is now turning into hell heading for NUCLEAR ARMAGGEDON...
The best possible world is one which provides for all the needs of its inhabitants. It would exist in a framework that allows for intelligence to evolve, explore, and create. It would provide a near limitless bank of possibilities, bound solely by the laws of its existence. We have all this. It is the ancestral drives of our species that we refuse to let go, which is getting in the way of realizing the full potentials that exist right here.
The ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ of Hugh Everett would provide the most elegant answer to the question of Theodicy of all that I have come across in Religion and Philosophy. Leibnitz may have proposed that our existing world is the best world that ‘God’ could have created. However, with the ‘MWI’, Everett’s ‘relative state formulation’ at macroscopic level would contend that much as there is no special place in this universe, there is also no privileged event. All possible events occur- natural or willed, and their prevalence amongst multiple worlds varies according to their respective probabilities. The ‘I’ that I am aware of is only observing a singular existence among multiple that occupy the same 3 dimensions of space but are ‘lateral’ to ours in ‘event-time’. Debates about Theodicy and any God’s Omnibenevolence are somewhat redundant if every possible event can occur in its’ own reality.
Leibinz said about possible worlds: a being is possible when It is logically possible. It NOT envolve contradictions. Guys shows about possible worlds are a lot rambling and keep out philosophy or logic proposition. Senseless.
Big fan of Plantinga! I don't share his spiritual beliefs, but I DO admire is intellect. ... I also don't believe this is the *"Best Possible World."* Instead, I consider this the most appropriate *"Default World"* (a "neutral template" for which to _imagine_ a best possible world). Our self-aware human consciousnesses allow us to challenge this neutral template, and the way we can imagine a better world is through *"Conceivability."* This *"Default World"* demonstrates conditions like 'survival of the fittest,' 'opposite and equal reactions,' and 'predator and prey.' However, we can easily conceive a world where we 'help out the _less fit"_ to equally survive, 'turning the other cheek,' and 'personally choosing not to eat meat,' respectively. ... It is arguable that the latter three conditions represent a *"Better World."* This *"Default World"* is like an artist being handed a blank canvas, brushes, and tubes of paint. We can argue that the canvas, brushes, and tubes of paint are all in themselves, "perfect," ... but what is ultimately created using these tools is what establishes value.
@@domini1331 *"It is a reasonably stable world, that is all we can tell."* ... I agree! And a Ford Escort is a reasonably stable automobile, but an arguably better car is the Bugatti La Voiture Noire. ... "Reasonably stable" is an excellent place to start. *"There could be several earth-like planets with living objects in this universe."* ... And if any of them have conscious, self-aware lifeforms, you can certainly bet they're wondering what the "best possible world" might be, just like we are.
What does the most appropriate default world mean exactly? Is it just another way of saying that this is an equidistant midworld, while the worst possible world and the best possible world are the endpoints? If so, how do you evaluate that? Why isn't this a possible world which is closer to the worst possible world rather than the best possible world? Or a possible world which is closer to the best possible world rather than the worst possible world?
*"What does the most appropriate default world mean exactly?"* ... If you wanted to drive really fast, you would buy a car from a sports car dealership. if you want to move a lot of stuff, you'd buy a truck or SUV from a truck and SUV dealership. If you wanted good gas milage, you'd buy an car from an economy car dealership. So, the most appropriate "best default" dealership would be one that deals in ALL of these vehicles. *"Is it just another way of saying that this is an equidistant midworld, while the worst possible world and the best possible world are the endpoints?"* ... First, I applaud your use of "endpoints on a spectrum" that are based on value. That is a core principle listed in my book. Second, the most appropriate "Default World" would be a world that allows you *the opportunity* to experience the highest levels of conceivability right along with the lowest. Every day, eight billion humans are testing the levels of conceivability regarding both ends of the spectrum - and on a planet that allows that to happen. We continuously push the endpoints on that spectrum farther and farther away from each other. Do you believe that the longest NFL field goal that can be conceivably kicked has already been kicked? ... No? ... I don't either! *"If so, how do you evaluate that?"* ... The same way you might evaluate a toolbox. The "best possible toolbox" would be the one that offers you the greatest amount of space and flexibility for storing your tools, but it might be so big that you can't transport it. The "worst possible toolbox" would be the one that allows you the least amount of space and flexibility even though it's easy to transport. The "default toolbox" would be the one that offers enough space for your commonly used tools while equally addressing transportability. And at the end of the day, your "tools" are what is most important as they are what gets the work done. *"Why isn't this a possible world which is closer to the worst possible world rather than the best possible world?"* ... First, the word "world" in this context can apply to planet earth or the universe as a whole. However, it doesn't matter because the same reasoning would apply to both. Second, if we all lived on Mars and could somehow function in its toxic atmosphere, we would have far less subjective experiences than we have here on planet Earth. *Examples:* We wouldn't be able to experience laying out by the pool on a hot summer day. You couldn't experience the taste of a kiwi nor a steak. You couldn't take a vacation to a tropical resort paradise nor walk through a forest and contemplate a tree. Earth offers you all of this and more! Then we take all of the experiences we amass in this very appropriate "Default World" and place them in a spectrum that's based on value. If you feel this is incorrect, then what would be a more appropriate world for generating this "spectrum of experiences?"
@@anteodedi8937panpsychism where you discover objective truth. Asking why you paint and what the meaning you can attach to it? Is your subjective experience. Albert Camus said, life will be lived all the better if it has no meaning and Carl Jung also said, man cannot stand on a meaningless life.
What a coincidence... Just yesterday our host sir Robert kuhn has raised several questions on consciousness and the United Nations seems to have met specially for that and recommended meditation as a means to experience consciousness
Happy meditation day. I have been doing the meditation for the last 20 years at least. I found that meditation is the means to experience divine consciousness.
Today the UN has recognized Dec21 as 'World Meditation day'. With the experience of meditation, best of possible would is here and now. At Osho Meditation Resort, 112 techniques of Osho meditation techniques are practiced. People from more than 150 countries participate.
To go into the question of whether this is the best possible world, we should take a little time to think of an alternate, better world than this. Will the death be not there? Will the sickness and old age ailings in the process of death be not there? Will there be equality of money, status, living conditions, opportunities, etc.? Will there be nation- and state-boundaries? Will there be uniformity of language, religion, race, etc? Will there be the same technological progress and distribution of its fruits for everyone? and all such questions may be considered to arrive at a solution that perhaps this is a better of all possible worlds, if not the best.
*"Will the death be not there? Will the sickness and old age ailings in the process of death be not there?"* ... Death and sickness are part of this "default template." True, we can imagine a "better world" where there is no death nor sickness, but what are the ramifications? Would an ever-increasing population of +300 billion humans who never die nor get sick be a "better world" than our 8-billion-humans world that we have right now?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Even if a better world with no death or sickness is conceivable, it may not be the reality. We should think about the real-world situations.
Worlds promises nothing, so learn@knowing God knowledge makes you "well prepared" for whatever might happen afterwards. Peace be upon us all and assalamualaiqum wmt
I used Leibniz's worldview to prove the RH. So, yes, this is the best possible world. Also, stop saying "soul" and just say "monadic Hilbert space with inner product". We can also stop saying "big bang" and say "infinitesimal fractal geometrogenesis".
The Bible indicates that this is the worst possible world and that the best will come. God's moral gift of freewill to mankind is the factor that makes all the difference.
No. You're not speaking carefully like a philosophy. Take the words you say seriously. Worst means worst, not merely sinful, fallen, or morally bad. Nowhere in the Bible does it call the world the worst possible. If you want to contribute to a philosophical discussion, understand that the practice involves being precise in what you say, not just throwing out a vague, conventional opinion.
@@js1817 This is not just a philosophical discussion. As you may know, not everyone is a philosopher or is interested in philosophy. This is a discussion about reality not some wordy interchange. According to the Bible, Satan is the ruler of this present world and he is the most evil creature ever. (John 8:44; 14:30) He is the embodiment of evil. What could be worse than having such a creature as a ruler?
@peweegangloku6428 It is important to speak in an accurate way. I don't agree that this is "the Bible indicates that this is the worst possible world". I agree that one possible interpretation of the Gospel of John is that Satan is the ruler of this world (tho what about the Christus Victor theory of the atonement?). That's not the same thing as saying that this is the worst of all possible worlds. In order to discuss ideas, we must be clear what we mean. If you say that this is the worst of all possible worlds, no one will be able to discuss that with you unless they know what you are trying to say. Being accurate in the way you use words facilitates that understanding.
If evolution is correct and we came into being and evolved on this world, then it would seem we are tailored to succeed perhaps more on this world than on any other world. Perhaps we could say this is the best of all possible worlds for multi cellular beings such as ourselves.
...If I may. This creation was Absolutely Perfect. I just want to remind you. The eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge allowed Sin to enter. This occured a while after the very first moment of Time/Space. At the very first moment, the amount of Energy & Power released was Huge. This is the reason for the time line. Creation had to have Time to settle. Please think on this carefully, respectfully ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis... you tube... Blessings...
But then it was God's plan, so it would be everything exactly like it should for the development of a free human being which is not a machine, the plan runs exactly like it should, everything and each possiblity is calculated and included, plan can't fail..
And if I may, what compels a person to communicate what you have here? What do intend to achieve? With all due respect, this is not a flattering advocacy.
Is this the best of all possible question - really, questions do condition the answer. The laws, causation, karma, justice, and the good are principles of parameters regarding the best of all possible worlds questions. This realm not being perfect, does this make it not a Just world? Without faults, errors, mistakes there is not real learning, development or growth. Without vulnerability, without understanding, there would be no opportunity for forgiveness - which is a great power, a force that comes through man, and is something higher above mere animal-man's impulsions. Is there self-sacrifice in a 'perfect world'? What even is this mental conception of a perfect world but a concept that revolves man as the center and based on his desires and selfishness. Although the material world and a beings corporeal organism(body) is not perfect, and the body of man being his cross(has multiple meanings) that he bears, the sufferings of etc. man should be grateful for the human being is the most lucky and gifted of all creatures, and man, with his intellect and faculty to Reason & understand, has the inherent capability to Recollect and see the Divine. Such a creature realizes truth, justice, the good, beauty, and virtue, and such gods come through man in inspiration and self-sacrifice, and divine Will. Maybe the material world isn't the best and yet man has a connection to a higher and better world here and now.
The whole idea of god is inconsistent, arbitrary, convenient and ultimately unknowable. So then the question is, what are the motivations of people who ask me for my faith?
Maybe God is just happy playing dice after all. Chance adds spice to God's perfect mind. If God plays with dice to create universes, they could only be partly God's responsability and in our own universe, we'd be responsible for our own life. In any case, it's fun to think of God needing a bit of unpredictability in his boring omniscient life. 😉 Seriously, the idea of this world being the best of all possible worlds is like falling in a freezing lake. 🥶 It feels like an insult to me and I hope it feels the same to God too because otherwise, there will be blood when I meet him... 🤬
It always bothers me when an intelligent, highly-educated person in today's world refuses to let go of a story about how a perfect creation was marred by a lying snake and a gullible woman. As for the best of all possible worlds, the emphasis should be placed on "possible." We don't have the remotest idea about the constraints that God, if He exists, had to contend with in choosing to create rather than clone. As cloning would have violated God's uniqueness and unity, so creation may have entailed the bringing into being of a Not-God which necessarily lacked all of the classic divine attributes. Indeed, if you flip each and every one, you have a pretty fair description of the attributes of the world we inhabit. And this is not to mention the possibility that the problematic world in which we find ourselves is incomplete and only preliminary, that what awaits it is that far better, much more beautiful world envisioned by Julian of Norwich, in which all manner of things, forevermore, is well.
An Optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds and the pessimist fears the same may be true!
...it is way much better than the emptiness (hell) where our lost souls came from....
..but the best or worst is yet to come, Heaven or Hell....
@@evaadam3635
If heaven is so great, why not go there now?
What can you do on earth that you cannot do in heaven?
@@jimliu2560... your free immortal soul is free to believe anything for any reason whether you are in Heaven or on earth... and whatever you freely choose to believe to act on that belief, you are always accountable for it...
...so, returning back to Heaven does not rely on your order or demand, but relies on what you freely choose to believe....
I don't believe that an optimist stays optimistic all their life, and the same with a pessimist. There are always ups and downs in life, and old age, sickness and death. If someone were to look at life throughout history objectively and collectively, then there is no possible way that anyone can say this is the best of all possible worlds. It's only when someone looks at it subjectively based on their present situation that their opinion will be positive or negative. But I don't believe that's the way to answer the question.
@realitycheck1231 I actually stole that quote from someone else. Seems like you might be in the pessimist category.
To even consider that is utter stupidity. As Aldous Huxley said maybe this world is another planet's hell.
The purpose of life on Earth is to learn about and experience, good and evil, love and hate, a world with God and a world without God so you can make an informed choice about where you want to spend eternity, either with God or without Him. To quote the great philosopher, Yogi Berra, “If the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be” If the world were perfect the way the atheists imagine it should be, we wouldn’t be learning about good and evil.
Think how perverse you need to be to create a world with the sole purpose of teaching a brand-new creature, brought into existence from nothing, 'what evil is' 😂
@@marcoliberamente Think how dumb you need to be to not understand that in order for freedom to exist, it had to be that way... Don't ever change : you're already so perfect ! Ha ha ha... You're actually the only perfect thing in the whole creation. Ha ha ha...
God wants us to freely choose good over bad. Because in a world where only good exists, good doesn't really exists since there would be nothing to compare it to. If there's only day, day doesn't really exist. Day exists only if night exists as well. The world needs opposites in order for freedom to exist. The freedom to choose bad.
this world is full of injustice, sadness, fear, pain, suffering, but there is hope, all things end. when we die with a good merit. and become a perfect being above all else. and more than we suffering. it is God who suffers the most. so God will one day end all pain for himself and us.
Remember that possible worlds has always meant worlds that are not logically self-contradictory (Aristotle, Aquinas, etc.) The so-called "butterfly effect" derived from chaos theory in science and mathematics tells us that one can never be 100% certain of all of the long-term effects of a given action. But a hypothetical omniscient Creator who was outside or "beyond" time would not be so limited. So God would know ALL the ultimate consequences of the Creation. Whereas we cannot.
You seem to have a sound knowledge here. One question: R Swinburne said "Now God cannot create the best of all possible worlds. Any world he creates would be less good than some world he could create because more is better." Is that correct? I m not sure I understand why it should be. regards
I haven't listened to Swinburne's discussion, but I agree with you. I don't think it makes any sense to say more is better. A quantitative approach like that doesn't seem appropriate at all.@@jjcm3135
Leibnitz didn't understand Bible would be my answer, but at least it allowed Voltaire to mock something very simple that for some reason he didn't understand. Not sure why Plantinga isn't aware of Garden of Eden story? I thought these people were all intelligent😂 Adam and Eve choose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and Evil after God allows for free will, the world becomes corrupted (not best of possible worlds from a Biblical perspective).
I think and hope the World is still evolving. It is mind boggling how many bits of information the Universe is made and that it is all connected and interacting even beyond where we can see. Which is a long way !
🔭 🌌
...there is no long way.... if you are driven by evolution beyond control, then you are no different than a clueless washer/dryer machine driven by electric current, no choice...
Is this world better than the one where Adan & Eve chose not to eat the forbidden fruit? If "Yes," then why were they punished for making the world better? If "No," then this isn't the best of all possible worlds.
...there was no Adama and Eve... it was a story written by imperfect men who tried to reenact our pasts that did not hapen on earth but happened in the Spiritual World....
"God" allowed for the universe. "God" allowed for a universe that could eventually result in conscious beings. "God" gave those beings free-will. The best possible world is an impossibility given our nature. It is always our task to make the world we have better.
... if GOD created free will, then GOD is all responsible for the evils that men do... You are teaching people to feel NO ACCOUNTABILITY, very irresponsible...
It's not best of possible worlds according to Bible. In Book of Revelation there is a new heaven and earth.
Sorry, but I do not even understand the question.
For who?
If our reality is created by God's mind and exists in our minds? Maybe the many possible worlds exist in the mind of God😂
No... it is not the best. It's simply the first stage human evolution at self's level. This world can become better if humans create a world based on Permanent Values...
...this world can become better if NO ONE thinks that his/her Original Mama is Darwin's IGUANA coming from Unconscious Bigbang out of NOTHING...
... preaching evolution to our children is the worst form of Child ABUSE...
This sounds so interesting! What does it mean that this is the first stage of human evolution, and what does it mean that we are at the level of the self? Does the second stage involve the creation of a world based on Permanent Values, or something else entirely? How many stages are there? What are the Permanent Values?
@SheilaCarpenter-h2o Thanks for your post. Never thought someone will show interest in this post... glad you did it!
I will try to explain very briefly. If you have further interest then I will recommend few books...
Firstly, this world and our creation as humans with choice and intent have higher purpose. Each one of us has a self e.g. what I am writing here is thru expressing my self. This self of ours does not age e.g. our thoughts do not age but our brain does age! Hence no death at the level of our self.
Secondly, our body is not going to evolve any further and has reached this state of being human and is there to help in the evolution of our self I.e. thru values we have a choice to either become better humans or worse ones. Choice is ours. However those of us who wish to become better, need to understand the latent potentials within us which need to come out. For example how good I can become as a human being?
Thirdly, to become the best we need a value system which can serve as an external standard we we do not have inner guidance as we have choice and intent. It means growing our self under relative values will grow us relatively while developing under Permanent Values we will grow to a higher level.
Permanent Values are those which do not change and remain the same for the first man on earth and the last man 9n earth. For example death is a Permanent value or human self is a permanent value or human accountability is a PV... so on
I will leave it there... pl come back if you wish to know more...
@SheilaCarpenter-h2o Thanks for your post. I drafted a reply and thought posted it but not sure what happened to it? I am happy to explain it further... briefly, each one of us possesses choice and intent and have a self which revolves around our 'I'. Our sense of self remains with us even if we loose memory. Under man made systems we live under man made laws which are based on relative values e.g. might is right, divide and rule, relative justice, class system, discrimination of all kinds...
Permanent Values are those which remain immutable and are equally applicable to first man and the last man e.g. our death, our accountability at self's level, no contradiction in word and deed, respect as a human being, equality at self's level...
Our death comes to our body not to our self... where is the evidence?
Please let me know and I will expand further...
I would think that as this universe evolves or any other universes, ...? It would make sense that if evolution is directly connected with knowledge, morality, wisdom, … then I could imagine that there would be a better world and including a better God at some point until a God is no longer necessary. And the best worlds would come into being or otherwise from this evolution. Unless everyone thinks we are at the pinnacle of any evolution in all aspects considered? I mean really, would you like to be still hunting game for survival and running away from things with sharp teeth and claws? Sounds kind of dangerous to me... not to mention dirty and unhealthy.
..when mankind were once hunting for food, there was no fear of Nuclear Armageddon.....
@@evaadam3635 I would still think these justified worries falls into the evolution of human beings mentioned. Whereas, because of the evolution state of these early human beings there was little that could be done to avoid issues brought on by nature or others over the hill for various reasons... In other words, the threat of force by these nuclear weapons used as war are in control of humans, but more than likely of a lower personal evolution than those who created them. This create these fears when focusing on unpeaceful and violent behaviors and more than likely from the God believers as well, as they seem to be well adapted to belligerency, at least from who controls the world currently. It is a choice today as opposed to other millenniums past on various issues out of one's control, that we have, peace or unpeace...
@@thewefactor1.... when you replace faith in a loving GOD with Darwin's IGUANA as your Original Mama to feel NO ACCOUNTABILITY, just evolving by accident to no fault of your own, you should not wonder why once a paradise earth is now turning into hell heading for NUCLEAR ARMAGGEDON...
The best possible world is one which provides for all the needs of its inhabitants. It would exist in a framework that allows for intelligence to evolve, explore, and create. It would provide a near limitless bank of possibilities, bound solely by the laws of its existence. We have all this. It is the ancestral drives of our species that we refuse to let go, which is getting in the way of realizing the full potentials that exist right here.
Stop talking about god as if it's real. 😂😂😂
The ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ of Hugh Everett would provide the most elegant answer to the question of Theodicy of all that I have come across in Religion and Philosophy.
Leibnitz may have proposed that our existing world is the best world that ‘God’ could have created. However, with the ‘MWI’, Everett’s ‘relative state formulation’ at macroscopic level would contend that much as there is no special place in this universe, there is also no privileged event. All possible events occur- natural or willed, and their prevalence amongst multiple worlds varies according to their respective probabilities.
The ‘I’ that I am aware of is only observing a singular existence among multiple that occupy the same 3 dimensions of space but are ‘lateral’ to ours in ‘event-time’. Debates about Theodicy and any God’s Omnibenevolence are somewhat redundant if every possible event can occur in its’ own reality.
I like the idea of a "practice world".
Leibinz said about possible worlds: a being is possible when It is logically possible. It NOT envolve contradictions. Guys shows about possible worlds are a lot rambling and keep out philosophy or logic proposition. Senseless.
Shouldn't we be having a Solstice speaker today and not another Abrahamic episode?
pls answer how many times god created universes or is this 1st time
Let's hope not...
Big fan of Plantinga! I don't share his spiritual beliefs, but I DO admire is intellect. ... I also don't believe this is the *"Best Possible World."* Instead, I consider this the most appropriate *"Default World"* (a "neutral template" for which to _imagine_ a best possible world). Our self-aware human consciousnesses allow us to challenge this neutral template, and the way we can imagine a better world is through *"Conceivability."*
This *"Default World"* demonstrates conditions like 'survival of the fittest,' 'opposite and equal reactions,' and 'predator and prey.' However, we can easily conceive a world where we 'help out the _less fit"_ to equally survive, 'turning the other cheek,' and 'personally choosing not to eat meat,' respectively.
... It is arguable that the latter three conditions represent a *"Better World."*
This *"Default World"* is like an artist being handed a blank canvas, brushes, and tubes of paint. We can argue that the canvas, brushes, and tubes of paint are all in themselves, "perfect," ... but what is ultimately created using these tools is what establishes value.
It is a reasonably stable world, that is all we can tell. There could be several earth-like planets with living objects in this universe.
@@domini1331 *"It is a reasonably stable world, that is all we can tell."*
... I agree! And a Ford Escort is a reasonably stable automobile, but an arguably better car is the Bugatti La Voiture Noire. ... "Reasonably stable" is an excellent place to start.
*"There could be several earth-like planets with living objects in this universe."*
... And if any of them have conscious, self-aware lifeforms, you can certainly bet they're wondering what the "best possible world" might be, just like we are.
What does the most appropriate default world mean exactly?
Is it just another way of saying that this is an equidistant midworld, while the worst possible world and the best possible world are the endpoints?
If so, how do you evaluate that? Why isn't this a possible world which is closer to the worst possible world rather than the best possible world? Or a possible world which is closer to the best possible world rather than the worst possible world?
*"What does the most appropriate default world mean exactly?"*
... If you wanted to drive really fast, you would buy a car from a sports car dealership. if you want to move a lot of stuff, you'd buy a truck or SUV from a truck and SUV dealership. If you wanted good gas milage, you'd buy an car from an economy car dealership. So, the most appropriate "best default" dealership would be one that deals in ALL of these vehicles.
*"Is it just another way of saying that this is an equidistant midworld, while the worst possible world and the best possible world are the endpoints?"*
... First, I applaud your use of "endpoints on a spectrum" that are based on value. That is a core principle listed in my book.
Second, the most appropriate "Default World" would be a world that allows you *the opportunity* to experience the highest levels of conceivability right along with the lowest. Every day, eight billion humans are testing the levels of conceivability regarding both ends of the spectrum - and on a planet that allows that to happen. We continuously push the endpoints on that spectrum farther and farther away from each other.
Do you believe that the longest NFL field goal that can be conceivably kicked has already been kicked? ... No? ... I don't either!
*"If so, how do you evaluate that?"*
... The same way you might evaluate a toolbox. The "best possible toolbox" would be the one that offers you the greatest amount of space and flexibility for storing your tools, but it might be so big that you can't transport it. The "worst possible toolbox" would be the one that allows you the least amount of space and flexibility even though it's easy to transport. The "default toolbox" would be the one that offers enough space for your commonly used tools while equally addressing transportability. And at the end of the day, your "tools" are what is most important as they are what gets the work done.
*"Why isn't this a possible world which is closer to the worst possible world rather than the best possible world?"*
... First, the word "world" in this context can apply to planet earth or the universe as a whole. However, it doesn't matter because the same reasoning would apply to both.
Second, if we all lived on Mars and could somehow function in its toxic atmosphere, we would have far less subjective experiences than we have here on planet Earth. *Examples:* We wouldn't be able to experience laying out by the pool on a hot summer day. You couldn't experience the taste of a kiwi nor a steak. You couldn't take a vacation to a tropical resort paradise nor walk through a forest and contemplate a tree.
Earth offers you all of this and more! Then we take all of the experiences we amass in this very appropriate "Default World" and place them in a spectrum that's based on value.
If you feel this is incorrect, then what would be a more appropriate world for generating this "spectrum of experiences?"
@@anteodedi8937panpsychism where you discover objective truth. Asking why you paint and what the meaning you can attach to it? Is your subjective experience.
Albert Camus said, life will be lived all the better if it has no meaning and Carl Jung also said, man cannot stand on a meaningless life.
What a coincidence... Just yesterday our host sir Robert kuhn has raised several questions on consciousness and the United Nations seems to have met specially for that and recommended meditation as a means to experience consciousness
Happy meditation day. I have been doing the meditation for the last 20 years at least. I found that meditation is the means to experience divine consciousness.
Today the UN has recognized Dec21 as 'World Meditation day'. With the experience of meditation, best of possible would is here and now. At Osho Meditation Resort, 112 techniques of Osho meditation techniques are practiced. People from more than 150 countries participate.
To go into the question of whether this is the best possible world, we should take a little time to think of an alternate, better world than this. Will the death be not there? Will the sickness and old age ailings in the process of death be not there? Will there be equality of money, status, living conditions, opportunities, etc.? Will there be nation- and state-boundaries? Will there be uniformity of language, religion, race, etc? Will there be the same technological progress and distribution of its fruits for everyone? and all such questions may be considered to arrive at a solution that perhaps this is a better of all possible worlds, if not the best.
*"Will the death be not there? Will the sickness and old age ailings in the process of death be not there?"*
... Death and sickness are part of this "default template." True, we can imagine a "better world" where there is no death nor sickness, but what are the ramifications? Would an ever-increasing population of +300 billion humans who never die nor get sick be a "better world" than our 8-billion-humans world that we have right now?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Even if a better world with no death or sickness is conceivable, it may not be the reality. We should think about the real-world situations.
Worlds promises nothing, so learn@knowing God knowledge makes you "well prepared" for whatever might happen afterwards. Peace be upon us all and assalamualaiqum wmt
I used Leibniz's worldview to prove the RH. So, yes, this is the best possible world.
Also, stop saying "soul" and just say "monadic Hilbert space with inner product".
We can also stop saying "big bang" and say "infinitesimal fractal geometrogenesis".
KeytruDa 4U 😅😂😂😂😂
The Bible indicates that this is the worst possible world and that the best will come.
God's moral gift of freewill to mankind is the factor that makes all the difference.
No. You're not speaking carefully like a philosophy. Take the words you say seriously. Worst means worst, not merely sinful, fallen, or morally bad. Nowhere in the Bible does it call the world the worst possible.
If you want to contribute to a philosophical discussion, understand that the practice involves being precise in what you say, not just throwing out a vague, conventional opinion.
@@js1817 This is not just a philosophical discussion. As you may know, not everyone is a philosopher or is interested in philosophy. This is a discussion about reality not some wordy interchange.
According to the Bible, Satan is the ruler of this present world and he is the most evil creature ever. (John 8:44; 14:30) He is the embodiment of evil. What could be worse than having such a creature as a ruler?
@peweegangloku6428
It is important to speak in an accurate way.
I don't agree that this is "the Bible indicates that this is the worst possible world".
I agree that one possible interpretation of the Gospel of John is that Satan is the ruler of this world (tho what about the Christus Victor theory of the atonement?). That's not the same thing as saying that this is the worst of all possible worlds.
In order to discuss ideas, we must be clear what we mean. If you say that this is the worst of all possible worlds, no one will be able to discuss that with you unless they know what you are trying to say. Being accurate in the way you use words facilitates that understanding.
😅😂😂😂😂😂
If evolution is correct and we came into being and evolved on this world, then it would seem we are tailored to succeed perhaps more on this world than on any other world. Perhaps we could say this is the best of all possible worlds for multi cellular beings such as ourselves.
Even this is not an obvious and straightforward conclusion. How would we possibly know?
❤❤💕💕💕💕🙏🙏💕💕💕💕❤❤
Worlda U2 😅😂😂😂😂😂
...If I may. This creation was Absolutely Perfect. I just want to remind you. The eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge allowed Sin to enter. This occured a while after the very first moment of Time/Space. At the very first moment, the amount of Energy & Power released was Huge. This is the reason for the time line. Creation had to have Time to settle. Please think on this carefully, respectfully ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis... you tube... Blessings...
But then it was God's plan, so it would be everything exactly like it should for the development of a free human being which is not a machine, the plan runs exactly like it should, everything and each possiblity is calculated and included, plan can't fail..
And if I may, what compels a person to communicate what you have here? What do intend to achieve? With all due respect, this is not a flattering advocacy.
Is this the best of all possible question - really, questions do condition the answer.
The laws, causation, karma, justice, and the good are principles of parameters regarding the best of all possible worlds questions. This realm not being perfect, does this make it not a Just world? Without faults, errors, mistakes there is not real learning, development or growth. Without vulnerability, without understanding, there would be no opportunity for forgiveness - which is a great power, a force that comes through man, and is something higher above mere animal-man's impulsions. Is there self-sacrifice in a 'perfect world'? What even is this mental conception of a perfect world but a concept that revolves man as the center and based on his desires and selfishness. Although the material world and a beings corporeal organism(body) is not perfect, and the body of man being his cross(has multiple meanings) that he bears, the sufferings of etc. man should be grateful for the human being is the most lucky and gifted of all creatures, and man, with his intellect and faculty to Reason & understand, has the inherent capability to Recollect and see the Divine. Such a creature realizes truth, justice, the good, beauty, and virtue, and such gods come through man in inspiration and self-sacrifice, and divine Will. Maybe the material world isn't the best and yet man has a connection to a higher and better world here and now.
The whole idea of god is inconsistent, arbitrary, convenient and ultimately unknowable. So then the question is, what are the motivations of people who ask me for my faith?
Maybe God is just happy playing dice after all. Chance adds spice to God's perfect mind. If God plays with dice to create universes, they could only be partly God's responsability and in our own universe, we'd be responsible for our own life. In any case, it's fun to think of God needing a bit of unpredictability in his boring omniscient life. 😉
Seriously, the idea of this world being the best of all possible worlds is like falling in a freezing lake. 🥶 It feels like an insult to me and I hope it feels the same to God too because otherwise, there will be blood when I meet him... 🤬
It always bothers me when an intelligent, highly-educated person in today's world refuses to let go of a story about how a perfect creation was marred by a lying snake and a gullible woman. As for the best of all possible worlds, the emphasis should be placed on "possible." We don't have the remotest idea about the constraints that God, if He exists, had to contend with in choosing to create rather than clone. As cloning would have violated God's uniqueness and unity, so creation may have entailed the bringing into being of a Not-God which necessarily lacked all of the classic divine attributes. Indeed, if you flip each and every one, you have a pretty fair description of the attributes of the world we inhabit. And this is not to mention the possibility that the problematic world in which we find ourselves is incomplete and only preliminary, that what awaits it is that far better, much more beautiful world envisioned by Julian of Norwich, in which all manner of things, forevermore, is well.
Is this man serious, does he actually think he can conceive the inner experience of god?