What is your answer?
How would Plantinga criticize this argument? "God, if he existed, would have created the best of all possible worlds. But this isn't the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, there is no God."
{ 1 } - Maybe there's no "best" possible world; maybe, for each world that can be imagined, a still better one can be imagined -- one with even more bliss.
{ 2 } - Maybe the "best" possible world would have free creatures always choosing to do the right thing; but God can't bring about this world unless the free creatures cooperate.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is wrong. Please try again.
How would Plantinga criticize this argument? "God, if he existed, would have created the best of all possible worlds. But this isn't the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, there is no God."
{ 1 } - Maybe there's no "best" possible world; maybe, for each world that can be imagined, a still better one can be imagined -- one with even more bliss.
{ 2 } - Maybe the "best" possible world would have free creatures always choosing to do the right thing; but God can't bring about this world unless the free creatures cooperate.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
Just as there's no highest number, there may be no best possible world. Then God couldn't create the best of all possible worlds.
Plantinga would also give the other objection.
<= back | menu | forward =>
2 is wrong. Please try again.
How would Plantinga criticize this argument? "God, if he existed, would have created the best of all possible worlds. But this isn't the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, there is no God."
{ 1 } - Maybe there's no "best" possible world; maybe, for each world that can be imagined, a still better one can be imagined -- one with even more bliss.
{ 2 } - Maybe the "best" possible world would have free creatures always choosing to do the right thing; but God can't bring about this world unless the free creatures cooperate.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
God couldn't force them to do the right thing unless he took away their freedom.
Plantinga would also give the other objection.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is correct!
How would Plantinga criticize this argument? "God, if he existed, would have created the best of all possible worlds. But this isn't the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, there is no God."
{ 1 } - Maybe there's no "best" possible world; maybe, for each world that can be imagined, a still better one can be imagined -- one with even more bliss.
{ 2 } - Maybe the "best" possible world would have free creatures always choosing to do the right thing; but God can't bring about this world unless the free creatures cooperate.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
It's misleading to speak of God "creating" a possible world, since this implies that he brings about every detail. If God's world contains free beings, then some of the details depend on their free choices.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
4 is wrong. Please try again.
How would Plantinga criticize this argument? "God, if he existed, would have created the best of all possible worlds. But this isn't the best of all possible worlds. Therefore, there is no God."
{ 1 } - Maybe there's no "best" possible world; maybe, for each world that can be imagined, a still better one can be imagined -- one with even more bliss.
{ 2 } - Maybe the "best" possible world would have free creatures always choosing to do the right thing; but God can't bring about this world unless the free creatures cooperate.
{ 3 } - He gives both objections.
{ 4 } - He accepts the argument and thus rejects belief in God.
You sure didn't read very carefully!
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end