Let's talk abot Leibniz!

“…some things wouldn’t be better at the cost of more other things being worse.”

How could any given thing be better? If this is the best of all possible worlds?

You seem to be limiting the possibilities based on something. It cannot be God. So what is it?

In any case, talking about Leibniz again, God is limitlesness itself. Limitlesness is on the side of good.

Would you like to rebutt Leibniz and claim that God, limitlesness, has no preference for good or bad?

Well, when you feel up to it read my entire post. I know it is YUUUUGE. But it is in there.

That, too, is in that YUUUUUUUUGE post.

Better just not try though. We know what comes from trying sometimes - you don’t want to risk accomplishing anything.

I’ll take that as a very ill-mannered no…

Dunno what you’re on about. I just refused some bullshit.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8GvLKTsTuI[/youtube]

Lol. English street kids ARE little rich boys compared to Venezuelan ones. Just sayin.

Still haven’t answered about Leibniz guy. I guess you won’t at this point.

“…you don’t want to risk accomplishing anything.”

I told you what was wrong with your argument. Leibniz did not err like that, so this isn’t about him, or refuting his arguments. I have no issue with Leibniz, he intuited the self-valuing logic by the elements that eluded Nietzsche but still had to connect this to the part of his brain that produces faith, where I connected it to certainty.

With love, cause I’ve known you for going on 10 years now and consider you a friend, you said a lot and said nothing just now.

“Would you like to rebutt Leibniz and claim that God, limitlesness, has no preference for good or bad?”

I’ve read Leibniz. You told me you haven’t but maybe you have. This is coherent. What you have said so far ain’t. Except in that

“You seem to be limiting the possibilities based on something.”

And yet

“It cannot be God.”

Because

“talking about Leibniz again, God is limitlesness itself.”

So

“So what is it?”

But even more coherently

“Would you like to rebutt Leibniz and claim that God, limitlesness, has no preference for good or bad?”

I pointed out two erroneous assumptions that someone of your intelligence can easily recognize. You are not addressing these errors, but throwing straw men and disjointed references at me. My very modest accomplishment here seems to elude you like the larger part of the Empire State Building was once hidden from me by a snowstorm.

I will never understand those that don’t have the power of inference.

So you don’t want to talk about Leibniz?

Because you haven’t.

At least not at the level I would hope any philosopher to be able to.

Some allusions to some achievement. Unconnected to anything Leibniz said, specially since they are only allusions.

You expect me to take that shit seriously?

Psssht. I thought so.

Center of the universe syndrome.

Why and how is that good?

Hmm…

Some first considerations:

It speaks of the richness of the world that one being endowed with so much of it is capable of interpreting it as him being the center of the universe! What riches lie ahead for us who don’t have this limitation! And even before that, what riches this person enjoys of God’s world, the best of all possible ones! What joy for him such richness must be, pain and all!

Kekekekkek

This guy paraphrases one Leibniz statement , interprets it like 1+2 equals a monkey, I point him to his silliness, and he goes on a triumphant prance-fest.

I wish there was something to respond to Pedro I Rengel. But making logical errors the point of your OP just gets you this - contempt.

This “argument” from Leibniz is a festeroo of stupidity too. It doesn’t take much to realize he penned this down to get the Church off his back

God has the idea of infinitely many universes.

Who created God?

Only one of these universes can actually exist.

In gods name, WHY?
No argument whatsoever.

God’s choices are subject to the principle of sufficient reason, that is, God has reason to choose one thing or another.

Because… as a human imperfect mortal obviously he knows God’s mind. Obviously.

God is good.Therefore, the universe that God chose to exist is the best of all possible worlds.

Lol.

And at night he pets you on the head.

Even if any of this made any sense at all, your idea that in the best possible universe all individual things are the best too is just another layer of feeble randomness on top.

If you had read Leibniz you would not seek out this… billboard-attribution. You’d be studying the architecture of a monadological argument.

“God’s choices are subject to the principle of sufficient reason, that is, God has reason to choose one thing or another[.]”

So God is limited by reason?

Obviously then this is not Liebniz’s God. But let us say it is and you meant preference,

“God has reason to choose one thing or another.”

So something other than good?

Again, try not to feel insulted, I’m just trying to understand how you are approaching Leibniz.