On the Problem of Evil and the Best of All Possible Worlds

[irichc]

I.

1. Any proposition is meaningless or meaningful.

1.1. A meaningless proposition equals to a pure contradiction (for instance, "A = no A").

1.2. Any meaningful proposition is true or false.

1.2.1. I define "truth" as non-contradiction ("my mother is old"), and "falsity" as partial contradiction (["my mother gave birth to me" + "my mother was never born"] = "my mother was never born").

1.3. The simplest meaningful proposition is a tautology, which shows the adequation between a subject and a predicate (let's say, "A = A").

1.3.1. A tautology is always true.

1.4. On the other hand, non-tautological propositions express the relationship between propositions themselves (gramatical propositions) or between the different events in the world (factual propositions).

1.4.1. Gramatical propositions only affect language and they are neither true nor false. Being merely consensual, they don't need a reason.

1.4.2. Factual propositions concern reality and they are described as true or false.

1.4.2.1. I define "reality" as possibility of being, that is, as intelligibility.

1.4.2.1. A factual proposition can be contradictory or non-contradictory.

1.4.2.1.1. Every contradictory (meaningful) proposition is partially unintelligible. Therefore, it is false rather than true.

1.4.2.1.2. Every non-contradictory proposition is intelligible. Therefore, it is true rather than false.

1.4.2.2. A true proposition can be actual or unactual.

1.4.2.2.1. I define "actual" as being in this world, and "unactual" as not being in this world.

1.4.2.2.2. Then: How can we know unactual propositions if they are not in this world?


II.

My conclusion is that we know them because they share the same logical status. Furthermore, two propositions may be both real and true, while only one of them is postulated "a posteriori" as an actual true proposition. Nevertheless we can't know "a priori" why this proposition is actual rather than unactual: To be certain, we must look for a reason.

And that is a good argument to believe in a Supreme Mind, which, by means of the Principle of sufficient reason, makes only the best became actual.

So, we must accept that:

1) Everything exists according to a reason (by the axiom "Nothing arises from nothing");

2) Everything which exists has a sufficient reason to exist;

3) Everything which exists is better than anything non-existent (by the first point: since it is more rational, it also has more reality), and, consequently, it is the best possible being in the best of all possible worlds (by the axiom: "That which contains more reality is better than that which contains less reality").

Thus, if God wanted to avoid evil, He would have to interact constantly with His creation (and that would prove that it isn't the best possible) or He would have to change the rules, sacrificing the Principle of sufficient reason and, then, losing the best of all possible worlds.

Greetings.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

 

[Leo Volont]

I.

Everything which exists is better than anything non-existent.

So, after all your annoying logic you simply drop in an aesthetic value judgment. And what an aesthetic judgment it is! You are unequivically declaring that the Worst Evils Imaginable, because they exist, are better than Neutrality. Just look at it .... a nice little family out for a picnic when either NOTHING appears over their heads, or a Slimy Evil Fire Breathing Dragon appears over their heads and instantly kills them all. Because the Evil Dragon exists, it must be better then the NOTHING that permits them all to live happily ever after.

Go back to school and get your Kindergarten Degree.

 

[Naomi]

Within our sub/conscious, we instinctively define "good" and "evil" to be:

Evil = Anything that threatens the basic sense of invincibility on which our sanity and ego are built on, and therefore depend on.

Good = Anything that either counteracts "evil" under the above definition, or works to bolster our basic sense of invincibility, or works to expand our egos.

This little mental system we've got going is dependant on our desperate need to convince ourselves we're invincible and untouchable, which comes from a certain mental lethargy. And fundamentalists rage on and on about how the world can be divided into "good" and "evil", and how they're always right ... what do we make of this? And the more fundamentalist they are, the more they reject science. I rest my case.

 

[Leo Volont]

Within our sub/conscious, we instinctively define "good" and "evil" to be:

Evil = Anything that threatens the basic sense of invincibility on which our sanity and ego are built on, and therefore depend on.

Good = Anything that either counteracts "evil" under the above definition, or works to bolster our basic sense of invincibility, or works to expand our egos.

No. I'm afraid you are confusing Moral Designators with a Predators Self-Satisfaction Barometer. Your good is equivalent to I AM WINNING. Your evil is the same as I AM LOSING.

The Terms Good and Evil were created for use in Moral Instruction. Evil is Predatory and Harmful and is used to designate that which would attack or destroy the Community. Evil would be something like eating the seed grain, theft of wives, or murder. Good is that which fosters the Community -- hard work, self-sacrifice.

I think you are thinking in terms of Animals. Let us raise the discussion up to Human Concerns.

 

[Cyperium]

I.

1. Any proposition is meaningless or meaningful.

1.1. A meaningless proposition equals to a pure contradiction (for instance, "A = no A").

1.2. Any meaningful proposition is true or false.

1.2.1. I define "truth" as non-contradiction ("my mother is old"), and "falsity" as partial contradiction (["my mother gave birth to me" + "my mother was never born"] = "my mother was never born").

1.3. The simplest meaningful proposition is a tautology, which shows the adequation between a subject and a predicate (let's say, "A = A").

1.3.1. A tautology is always true.

1.4. On the other hand, non-tautological propositions express the relationship between propositions themselves (gramatical propositions) or between the different events in the world (factual propositions).

1.4.1. Gramatical propositions only affect language and they are neither true nor false. Being merely consensual, they don't need a reason.

1.4.2. Factual propositions concern reality and they are described as true or false.

1.4.2.1. I define "reality" as possibility of being, that is, as intelligibility.

1.4.2.1. A factual proposition can be contradictory or non-contradictory.

1.4.2.1.1. Every contradictory (meaningful) proposition is partially unintelligible. Therefore, it is false rather than true.

1.4.2.1.2. Every non-contradictory proposition is intelligible. Therefore, it is true rather than false.

1.4.2.2. A true proposition can be actual or unactual.

1.4.2.2.1. I define "actual" as being in this world, and "unactual" as not being in this world.

1.4.2.2.2. Then: How can we know unactual propositions if they are not in this world?


II.

My conclusion is that we know them because they share the same logical status. Furthermore, two propositions may be both real and true, while only one of them is postulated "a posteriori" as an actual true proposition. Nevertheless we can't know "a priori" why this proposition is actual rather than unactual: To be certain, we must look for a reason.

And that is a good argument to believe in a Supreme Mind, which, by means of the Principle of sufficient reason, makes only the best became actual.

So, we must accept that:

1) Everything exists according to a reason (by the axiom "Nothing arises from nothing");

2) Everything which exists has a sufficient reason to exist;

3) Everything which exists is better than anything non-existent (by the first point: since it is more rational, it also has more reality), and, consequently, it is the best possible being in the best of all possible worlds (by the axiom: "That which contains more reality is better than that which contains less reality").

Thus, if God wanted to avoid evil, He would have to interact constantly with His creation (and that would prove that it isn't the best possible) or He would have to change the rules, sacrificing the Principle of sufficient reason and, then, losing the best of all possible worlds.

Greetings.

Daniel.


Theological Miscellany (in Spanish):

http://www.gratisweb.com/irichc/MT.htm

It's Gods decision if He wants to show us everything that exists or not.

It says in the Bible that it's the honor of kings to explore, but the honor of God to conceal. So everything that we don't see doesn't have to be less important than what we do see.

Revelation will come.