/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11026150

209KiB, 1180x842, 0bfe6ee8-301b-4a0c-a95e-4dd63648f362.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 18:02:51 2019 No.11026150 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11026487 >>11026499 >>11026506 >>11026512 >>11026671

>Everything is for the best in this best of possible worlds
>Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

How can men of genius intellect become so unreasonable in matters of philosophy and belief?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 20:31:12 No.11026487 Report

Quoted By: >>11026578

>>11026150
>>/lit/
Leibniz's argumentation is based on the assumption that God's intention was to build the best world that could be even if it wasn't good at all. Leibniz's thoughts and believes are based in logics and reasoning and this one assumption yielded a new explanation to the problem of theodicy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 20:37:51 No.11026497 Report

Quoted By:

>this is the best of possible worlds

Yikes

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 20:39:06 No.11026499 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026150
Many worlds interpretation BTFO

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 20:41:30 No.11026506 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026150
He was actually right when you consider that we also live in the only possible world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 20:44:53 No.11026512 Report

Quoted By: >>11026532

>>11026150
it's impossible to prove his argument wrong, even if it seems obviously absurd

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ichtyosis.png, 992KiB, 948x952

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 20:53:54 No.11026532 Report

Quoted By: >>11026535 >>11026541 >>11026577 >>11026691 >>11026703 >>11026717

>>11026512
Why would it a world where this child is born healthy be impossible?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 20:55:48 No.11026535 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026532
This child shouldn't have been born at all...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 20:58:45 No.11026541 Report

Quoted By: >>11026564

>>11026532
Because if an omnipotent God created this world then it must be the best one. God would create the best possible world so any closed system he created must be perfect. Even if bad things happen this must be the best possible world because of that.

Obviously you'd have to be an autistic mathematician to come up with this. You're basically begging for a coffee addicted Frog to satirize you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:12:09 No.11026564 Report

Quoted By: >>11026613 >>11026667

>>11026541
>Because if an omnipotent God created this world then it must be the best one.
It's not the best for there's no possible downside to one newborn suffering less.
Ergo God is not omnipotent, not good, or not real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:15:47 No.11026577 Report

Quoted By: >>11026581

>>11026532
how can you say that is evil without first postulating that good and evil exist? You are cherry picking bits and pieces out of the judeo-christian worldview without accepting their conclusions

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:15:58 No.11026578 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026487
New, doesn't mean "good". In fact by bringing up the idea of "the best of possible world's" he ironically btfo himself. One could easily apply the baldness paradox to determine if the concept is reasonable. Just replace hairs with rectified potential evils.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:17:06 No.11026581 Report

Quoted By: >>11026584

>>11026577
I'm not saying this is evil I'm saying this is bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:18:51 No.11026584 Report

Quoted By: >>11026588 >>11026590

>>11026581
when he says best possible world, hes saying the world with the most amount of good, and least amount of evil optimized. It has nothing to do with "bad"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:20:24 No.11026588 Report

Quoted By: >>11026600

>>11026584
That's not what best means.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:20:54 No.11026590 Report

Quoted By: >>11026600

>>11026584
So if I could have saved someone from dying of coronary arrest yesterday by calling EMS, we'd automatically switch over into a world that is tangibly more evil than our own?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:25:30 No.11026600 Report

Quoted By: >>11026610 >>11026620

>>11026588
thats exactly what best means in the context of his philosophy

>>11026590
>if the world wasnt the best of all possible worlds, whouldnt that mean the world would not be the best of all possible worlds?
bravo, anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:30:17 No.11026610 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026600
Bravo indeed. The concept was so stupid it practically undid itself

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:31:41 No.11026613 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026564
It assumes that there's an omnipotent God. If there's an omnipotent creator then how am I going to make a better decision?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:34:23 No.11026620 Report

Quoted By: >>11026627

>>11026600
>thats exactly what best means in the context of his philosophy
So his philosophy starts with saying suffering is not evil ? That solves the problem right there...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:37:05 No.11026627 Report

Quoted By: >>11026636

>>11026620
>suffering = evil
holy cringe, literal onions-boy logic

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:40:26 No.11026636 Report

Quoted By: >>11026650

>>11026627
Sorry I misrepresented my point.

So his philosophy starts with saying suffering is irrelevant ? That solves the problem right there...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:45:03 No.11026650 Report

Quoted By: >>11026657

>>11026636
>philosophy starts with saying suffering is irrelevant
no, it dosent, and thats not even relevent
his philosophy starts with the fact that there can be no good or evil without a god

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:47:09 No.11026657 Report

Quoted By: >>11026659

>>11026650
>his philosophy starts with the fact that there can be no good or evil without a god
which implies that the problem is about good and evil and that suffering by itself is irrelevant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:48:11 No.11026659 Report

Quoted By: >>11026667 >>11026668

>>11026657
No, it dosent. Read theodicy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:52:12 No.11026667 Report

Quoted By: >>11026684

>>11026659
So suffering is relevant ? Then back to >>11026564

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:54:07 No.11026668 Report

Quoted By: >>11026705

>>11026659
>Read "entire discipline"

That's a shitty suggestion in the first place. But the shittier thing is that theodicy is an apologetic discipline in the first place. It's like saying to a climate change slacktivist "read all these papers that deny climate change". No and fuck you as well

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 21:55:43 No.11026671 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026150
By faking it for the sake of argument. I think of it as a thought experiment in rhetoric.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 22:02:33 No.11026684 Report

Quoted By: >>11026757

>>11026667
Suffering is relevant for various reasons. On one hand suffering is necessary when fighting a war to preserve culture, humans, women children etc. It also is necessary to imbue humans with will to adapt and evolve with the situation they are in.

One baby having a birth defect dosent prove anything because you have to prove that this is an instance of suffering that is:
a. An instance of Evil, or motivated by an instance of Evil
b. Won't contribute to good
c. demonstrably avoidable in another world

>no possible downside to one newborn suffering less
you have to prove that

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 22:05:19 No.11026691 Report

Quoted By: >>11026757

>>11026532
the argument goes that this bit of evil was necessary in the greater scheme of things for the best overall good in the world. it's impossible to disprove because in order to do it you have to examine and understand the entire universe -- i.e. look through the eyes of God.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 22:08:52 No.11026703 Report

Quoted By: >>11026791

>>11026532
This doesn’t prove that it isn’t the best of all possible worlds. Maybe that child would grow up to try to foil Anglo American imperialism aka grow up to be Hitler.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 22:09:47 No.11026705 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026668
No, i mean Leibniz work. Though reading the entire works is better.

>But the shittier thing is that theodicy is an apologetic discipline in the first place
Yes, its called optimism. I think its clear that this sort of thinking is really unsettling to you, and alot of people in the west really. It gives people anxiety that god can be known to exist by rational argument and conceptualization, but the strangle hold that organized religion has on the thought. I cant say I dont blame you, teaching this stuff to some people is literally not possible and will result in holy wars, bigotry etc, but that dosent make it not true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 22:15:15 No.11026717 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026532
There's evil in everything, even in things which are "good". Nothing is wholly good or wholly evil.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 22:28:54 No.11026757 Report

Quoted By: >>11027746

>>11026684
>>11026691
>(dis)prove that
It's possible, because the consequences of this instance of suffering are limited. As we examine the universe further away from the baby, the impact of his suffering quickly becomes negligible. And as we examine his immediate environment and compare it to that of babies that were born free of horrible diseases, we easily notice that the suffering of this particular baby doesn't specifically contribute to good.

>c. demonstrably avoidable in another world
If *another* world is possible, then it must be different, so no need for further demonstration.

>a. An instance of Evil, or motivated by an instance of Evil
Evil being defined by God is circular logic that ignores the question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Oct 2019 22:42:39 No.11026791 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026703
That implies that God actively intervenes to stop evil people ? That would pose a lot of other problems, such as what about evil being the consequence of giving us free will, and what about the hitler that did live ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Oct 2019 07:02:41 No.11027746 Report

Quoted By:

>>11026757
>As we examine the universe further away from the baby, the impact of his suffering quickly becomes negligible.
chaos theory suggests this assumption is invalid

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches