The creator made the best possible world for people to live in. Pangloss’s philosophy did not argue that the world was perfect or that evil was non- existent. Pangloss wanted to bring realization to god; as being the creator of the world, and that thanks should be rendered to him through glorification for his goodness. Pangloss also believe that constant concern should be allocated to his creation. The world would emerge eventually to be moral and righteous; for... ... middle of paper ... ... universe could clearly not be explained by humankind’s intellect, and science.
The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe.
Evodius holds the position: “The existence of a good, all knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent) God is contradicted by our experience of evil in the world. It makes sense to conclude that God does not exist.” (Bwanali). As a response, Augustine asserts that the evil that we experience is just a lack of goodn... ... middle of paper ... ... good and is not the reason for evil are the ones that will live happy, faithful lives. All in all, the problem of evil has been debated for thousands of years. Some believe that evil is caused by Satan and not humanity, such as the Manichaeanists and Bogomilists, and some believe that humans are the cause of evil, rather than God, such as Augustine, Peter Kreefe, and myself.
The ideal is always “more perfect” than the real. For this reason, a God that only existed in the intellect would be the best conceivable God because it would avoid the “inherent imperfection” that comes with reality. In this manner, existence is not a perfection. In short, the Cartesian Ontological Argument attempts to prove the existence of God without any claims based on the external material world. Even though, intuitively there seems to be something immediately wrong with the argument, it is difficult to identify the actual mistakes in the argument.
This systematic optimism shown by Leibniz is the philosophical system that believed everything already was for the best, no matter how terrible it seemed. In this satire, Voltaire also used contrast in the personalities of the characters to convey the message that Leibniz's philosophy should not be dealt with any seriousness. Leibniz, sometimes regarded as a Stoic or Fatalist because his philosophies were based on the idea that everything in the world was determined by fate, theorized that God, having the ability to pick from an infinite number of worlds, chose this world, "the best of all possible worlds." Although Voltaire chose that simple quality of Leibniz's philosophy to satirize, Leibniz meant a little more than just that. Even though his philosophy stated that God chose "the best of all possible worlds," he also meant that God, being the perfection he is, chose the best world available to him, unfortunately it was a world containing evil.
This branch of optimism gets its name from Gottfried Leibniz, one of the rationale leaders of the day springing off of Descartes. This optimism states that there is evil in the world, but that reason could explain evil. He believed that there were certain truths even God could not alter, such as two plus two equaling four. Since this has to be the case, there were limits when God created the universe, thus he was working with an already flawed system. Leibniz goes on to say that this being the case, a perfect world is impossible, but Earth is the best of all possible worlds.
In the first chapter, Fretheim argues that the world as created by God was good, but with no absolute perfbctness, He supports his arguments by exploring the creation story, as recorded in the frrst and second chapters of book of Cenesis. According to him, God created a good world. However, thc creation did not achieve outright perfbotness, in terms ol orderliness (Frcthcim, 2010). Adranacus 2 Hence, it is still undergoing the process of crc... ... middle of paper ... ...some disasters and suffbring are worsened by people's sin. God is also takes part in suffering even as he continues to heal the creation.
Hence, everything that happens in the universe is part of this greater plan, and thus must be for the best. Humans cannot appreciate how the evils encountered in every day life contribute to the best of universes and universal harmony, but they do, nonetheless. Optimism was attractive to many because it answered a profound philosophical question that mankind had been grappling with since the beginning of faith: if God is omnipotent and benevolent, then why is there so much evil in the world? Optimism provides an easy way out of this philosophical dilemma: God has made everything for the best, and even though one might experience personal misfortune, God (via your misfortune) is still helping the greater good. Voltaire's experiences led him to dismiss the idea that this is the best of all possible worlds.
But since it has an objective reality, according to Descartes, it must have a formal reality, what is almost impossible. Descartes was obviously a man of great intelligence, who influenced the course of progress of Western Civilization. His inventions in the fields of Philosophy, Mathematics, Geometry, and science as a whole are undeniable. In his work he was very modest, always states himself no more gifted than anyone, but we can feel arrogance in his conclusions. For example, only his method would deliver humanity, he will complete the debate of God’s existence, his judgment is right to describe characteristics of God, etc.
Though these arguments Aquinas states his belief that God is the greatest of all things. While this is the same notion that Anselm has, Anselm does not hat the wit to back it up logically. In fact, the deeper you dig into Anselm, the more confusing and illogical it gets. Aquinas makes a great logical argument that is not terrible confusing. So, while they both had the same idea of God, only Aquinas was able to back it up.