The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Is this the best of all possible worlds?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 835 times Debate No: 105326
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Have you ever read Candide? I've tried to add this to polls or opinion but it never works for me, so I'll put it here.

First round is for acceptance.


I can already tell this is going to be a fun debate. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Sorry for the wait, aannnd I think I'll just eschew from Gottfried Leibniz ideas and go off the top of my head.

I say yes to this question due to the fact I would not want to change any event that has happened to me thus far in my life. Even events that I found traumatic or the fact I am not as rich or well off as I might want to be. I am me. I would not wish to be anyone else. In the future I do not intend to repeat bad decisions but I would not want to make them disappear from what has made me, me.

For myself this being the best of all possible worlds has to do with completely accepting the events that have lead up to this point.


"Our current universe is the best of all possible worlds since I am satisfied with my life and the person it led me to become." Is how I interpreted your argument.

You may be satisfied with your life, but that does not mean your life can't possibly be better. The world isn't soley based on how you feel about your life. Our world is riddled with war, genocide, murder, rapes, famine, poverty, pollution and so much more. I'm sure the victims of these events are not as satisfied with their lives as you are.
Different laws of physics are possible as well. I'd love to live in a world where magic exists. Extremely unlikely, yet still possible. The world would be objectively more exciting with magic. In terms of evolution (As evolution is a possibility that I do believe in) just imagine if the human race evolved with longer lifespans, stronger immune systems, stronger bones, tails, cat ears, etc. There are so many ways our universe can possibly be improved that it is truly unfathomable.
Debate Round No. 2


Random thoughts

The next moment will also be the best of all possible worlds.

For this to be the best of all possible worlds does not necessarily require everyone to be happy or had equal chances. You are speaking of individuals in that sense, who are part of the world but not the world as a whole.

If an axe is used to hew humans rather than fellow man... Does this mean the axe was not the best of all possible axes?

If someone plays a game of solitaire poorly this does not change the quality of the game, just their skill and luck.

That this is the best of all possible worlds is determined by the potential for what could be.

Most people assume that any creators that might have made this world are good and would have only allowed the possibility or occurrence of negative/bad actions and concepts because not doing so would take away from a greater purpose or freedom.


I don't completely grasp your argument. This is the best possible world because it is based on what humans make of it? There are many factors that determine aspects of our universe that are completely out of our control. The laws of physics, the evolution of species including our own, the location of countries, our sun's lifespan, etc. All of those factors had the chance (Though potentially unlikely) to be different. Our world has the chance to be better while still maintaining free will. As Pro you are not arguing against a perfect world, but just a possibly better one. There are an innumerous amount of ways our world can still be better. How great our world is, has to be based on either opinion or pure chance. I don't believe it's possible to argue that our universe had an absolute zero chance to be better.
Debate Round No. 3


Hmm, well lets try Leibniz
If we have the belief that God is the ultimate understanding of good and has knowledge of all possible existences,
then as only one version of existence (even with multiverse) exists, he would have created the best of all possible version of it.

Then me
Whether something good or something bad has happened that action was necessary for the current form of what was effected to be what it is.
The future may improve this world but that merely makes it a continuation of the best of all possible worlds.
If there is evil acts or people then they were necessary for a greater best of all possible worlds.


Argument I: German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz 's theory proves that this world is the best of all possible worlds.
Explanation of Leibniz's theory: If God is good and all-knowing, then he has created the best possible world.

For Pro to use Leibniz's theory, Pro has the burden of proof to prove that God exists.[1]
Pro has not supported the existence of God at all. Pro has implied that I assume God's existence. "If we have the belief that God is the ultimate understanding of good... he would have created the best possible version of the world" The only room I have to contend this argument is to say, "If God doesn't exist, then your argument is false." Therefore this argument is nullified as nothing can be further disputed as this is the last round.

Argument II: The world relies on causality. The past affects the future and the future influences the past.

This belief is currently a theory that has not been proven by our laws of physics.[2] For causuality to be proven, we would need the knowledge of how particles communicate with each other through an infinate distances of space and time. For instance, how does a particle communicate to other particles from the future to the past, and the past to the future? Pro has not put forth any evidence of how this occurs and has only claimed that this is the case. Pro has once again failed his burden of proof and again I have no room to refute Pro's evidence as none has been presented.

Conclusion: Pro has failed to meet the requirements for their burden of proof. Pro has not directly refuted any of my points, but has instead has made claims that oppose them. I have no reason to expand on my earlier points as they have not been addressed by Pro.

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Leaning 8 months ago
I'm sure I've thought this before, But that's kind of a bull**** vote. Hmm, Maybe I didn't think it in the past, Often made an actual effort to not mind votes, And I 'did think that Riven made better arguments in this debate. But still, I don't see why it should be by default. Hmm, Though I do get annoyed by having to give detailed RFDs myself. . . Eh, Still going to be annoyed by it right this moment since it looks like a vote made for the purpose of evening some debt of his to Riven.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
@DawnBringerRiven There, I voted.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
@DawnBringerRiven vote for me in this debate:
Posted by DawnBringerRiven 2 years ago
It's true your stance wasn't all that clear. Some of your language was a bit too Shakespearian for me haha
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
I would just like to thank Con for their participation in a whimsical debate.
How do I honestly feel about the question of this being the best of all possible worlds? I'm not sure, most of this debate came off arguments that sound vaguely convincing on the top of my head. Some of Leibniz but mostly not. I don't really feel I have to debate from the side of what I believe to do so. Sometimes taking the other side gives you a better picture of how much you even understand both sides of the subject.
I suspect I did not make a very clear point or argument, but ah well, not sure I had one. Anyhoo, I enjoyed your arguments.
Note, as none of this was in the debate none of it counts for voting.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Honestly I'm not sure. I just figured I'd make a vague first argument along the lines of Gottfried Leibniz. Then after someone else argues on how obviously that is wrong, I would point out any flaws in their argument and make a better argument thought up vaguely on the spot. Going off whatever is in my head at the moment, their argument, some but hardly any of Gottfried Leibniz.
Posted by SecularMerlin 2 years ago
The best in regards to what. For human habitation, longest lasting, most energetic, miss congeniality?
Posted by canis 2 years ago
It is the world, and the one you have...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con by default.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.