Can God Create A Better World?

A common objection by sceptics, often combined with the Problem of Evil (PoE) is that it seems at least intuitively possible that God could create a better world. We are asked to think of a world like ours minus one less murder or whatever perceived evil, this they argue would be a better world.

I grant it seems at least plausible that God could make a world like that. But does it follow God necessarily is obligated in creating such a world?

In my previous posts, I've argued that once certain nomological laws are in place in the universe; say the strong and weak nuclear forces and the initial low entropy of universe, cosmological constant’s and a whole raft of other constant’s are instantiated, this necessitates certain outcomes that have consequences. 

So, although its epistemically possible (what seems possible given our limited knowledge) God could make a 'better' world, it remains problematic if its metaphysically possible (what is truly possible given the nature of reality). For instance we could imagine water being H³O+ in a theoretical world, as long as it acted (chemically) exactly as it does in the actual world. But God couldn't change our laws of chemistry now that H²O is water, as chemistry dictates H³O+ is acidic.

Similarly, God might know changing laws could have a ripple effect which in fact makes a far worse world overall, making it a less attractive world to instantiate. 

Back to the point of God’s obligations, there are several broad different approaches:

• No best possible world: Some philosophers argue there is no "best possible world" because for any world God creates, a marginally better one can always be conceived (e.g., one less murder, one less instance of pain). This suggests that God is not obligated to create a "best" world, as such a concept may not exist.

• Optimal balance: God may instead aim for an optimal balance between goods and evils, where certain evils are necessary for achieving greater goods (e.g., the development of virtues like courage or compassion).

• Moral supererogation: Even if a better world is metaphysically possible, creating this world may not be a moral obligation. God's goodness may be consistent with creating any world that meets certain thresholds of goodness, rather than requiring God to maximize goodness at all costs.

My intuition is that there probably isn't a best possible world, but either of the three options leaves the theist an explanation. 

Sceptical Claims:

But what if we take the sceptics claims seriously, could God make a world with say less earthquakes? That would seem like something possible and would be better. 

The issue however is complicated. Plate tectonics are in fact necessary for life and for life to be sustained for hundreds of millions of years. Crust recycling allows for minerals to be replaced as the mantle is recycled in the core, mainly in the oceans. These minerals eventually find there way in the ecosystem via the water cycle through waters universal solvent properties.  

Additionally, and systematically the molten core provides a magnetic field that protects the planet from harmful radiation from the cosmic and solar radiation. Coupled with this volcanoes further deposit life giving minerals that can be slowly stripped by waters universal solvent properties. Furthermore, volcanic activity helps regulate temperatures through Carbon Dioxide and other gases being released into the atmosphere. 

The sceptic might suggest, maybe the crust was slightly thicker to reduce the number of earthquakes? However, it is widely recognised thicker crust could lead to more extreme earthquakes. 

Maybe the sceptic would suggest the core was solid? A solid core, would at the very least stop mineral recycling, leading to minerals eventually running out and life couldn't be sustained. And more likely with a molten core, it could result in the planet exploding if pressures aren't released.

We are therefore, left thinking our planet is in fact finely tuned for complex life to thrive, despite these necessary trade-offs. Consider another remarkable feature of our planet that we are 93 million miles away from the sun, according to some research it can only be within about 0.05 AU (Astronomical Units) of our current position from being too hot or cold for liquid water (a prerequisite for life)¹. Consider on top of this, the moons size in keeping the Earth's tilt stable.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the sceptic frequently conflates epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility. While it is easy to imagine a 'better' world, the sceptic must demonstrate that such a world is metaphysically feasible that is, compatible with the interdependent systems and laws that sustain life. Until they meet this burden of proof, the theist is not obligated to refute speculative scenarios. Instead, the theist can reasonably maintain that the current world, with its balance of goods and evils, is consistent with the existence of a good and rational God.

References

1.https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/how-much-closer-to-the-sun-could-earths-orbit-get-and-still-be-habitable