1

God Should Have Created an Imperfect Universe

Students' Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Code

Instructors' Name

Date
 2

God Should Have Created an Imperfect Universe.

Question Four: Both Descartes and Leibniz believe that God should have created an

imperfect universe; which argument is more convincing, Descartes or Leibniz and why?

I believe Leibniz's perspective of God creating an imperfect universe is more convincing

because of the following reasons:

I. The argument tends to be convincing and interesting because there is accountability

for how evil exists in the world.

II. Leibniz's perspective is also more convincing since it is not based on the ontological

view, which is controversial to people like Descartes' argument.

III. Finally, I find his argument of the need for an imperfect universe more satisfying. In

other words, people would not easily respect the perfection of God if everything were

perfect.

Both Descartes and Leibniz believe that God should have created an imperfect

universe. Descartes reasons that this is because it would be the perfect way for humans to

learn and grow. Leibniz suggests that the best universe is full of many goods, although

imperfections exist. Both thinkers argue that a perfect universe would be one in which all its

members are perfectly happy and may not be possible in the current world.

There are important insights to consider about the argument made by the

philosophers. First, it does not show that these philosophers believe God created anything

bad. There is the belief and support that God made what was good for the universe regardless

of whether people may consider it good or bad. It shows that the philosophers fully recognize

and agree that the world is imperfect. However, not all people may agree with the ideas

presented by the two philosophers because, in fact, many people think they would have done
 3

a better job. However, these thinkers provide a strong argument for their position, and it is

worth considering their point of view.

The main comparison in the arguments is that Descartes believes that God is perfect,

while Leibniz follows the idea of pre-established harmony. However, there are important

details to consider when making a decision to determine the more convincing argument.

According to Leibniz, his idea is based on the notion that God integrated things such that they

all things such that they align in some way which may include what people see and what they

think. In other words, the environmental world behaves in a predictable way, and our

thoughts correspond to the physical world in a certain way.

Leibniz argues that pre-established harmony is necessary because people would not

behave an understanding of what the world possesses without its understanding. In other

words, our mental state cannot interact with the environment surrounding in the best way

possible if God did not pre-establish this harmony. It is essential to recall that Leibniz is

certain that this principle is necessary for our freedom. It means that if people did not have

pre-established harmony, we would be determined by the physical environment and would

not act in a freeway. According to Descartes, God is perfect, and that is why he created an

imperfect world so that people would not undermine the perfection of God. Therefore, people

should only see God as being perfect.

Leibniz's argument, however, has some weaknesses. First, it is not clear why an

imperfect universe is necessary to appreciate God's perfection. Also, it is not evident why an

imperfect universe can be more satisfying than a perfect universe. Third, it is unclear why

God would create an imperfect universe when he could have created a perfect one. Leibniz's

argument for God creating an imperfect universe is more convincing. He states that

imperfection is not a requirement for people to be free. In other words, we could not act
 4

freely if everything were perfect. He also argues that pre-established harmony is necessary

for people to understand the world. Finally, he argues that an imperfect universe is more

satisfying than a perfect one. In other words, it would be hard to respect the perfection of God

if everything were perfect.

At first, it sounds like Descartes' argument is more convincing than Leibniz's

argument. After all, Descartes' argument does not rely on sufficient reason as a principle or

even on how evil came to be about on earth. Therefore, the argument tends to be convincing

and interesting because there is accountability for how evil exists in the world. On the other

hand, Leibniz's argument also considers the existence of everything and argues that God

created the best He could. Furthermore, Leibniz's argument is more convincing because it

does not depend on the ontological perspective supporting the claims. However, the

ontological argument is controversial, and some people do not believe it is convincing.

In conclusion, both Descartes and Leibniz believe that God should have created an

imperfect universe. Both thinkers state that a perfect universe would be one in which all its

members are perfectly happy, which may not be possible currently. Descartes is of the belief

that God is perfect; in other words, Descartes believes that God has a good reason for

creating an imperfect universe so that we may appreciate the perfection of God. Leibniz's

argument is thus more convincing because of the reasoning of reason and the perfection of

God alone.
 5

References

Antognazza, M. R. (2018). 4 Leibniz. Ontological Arguments, 75.

Pohoata, G. (2020). Why Is There Evil in This World, the Best of All Possible

Worlds?!. Cogito: Multidisciplinary Res. J., 12, 38.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cogito12&div=39&id

=&page=

Quandt, R. (2019). The reasoning of the Highest Leibniz and the Moral Quality of Reason.

The University of South Florida.

https://www.proquest.com/openview/ce940cfa2eed1838965b61af83b66170/1?pq-

origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

RajabNezhadian, M., & HosseiniEskandian, A. (2021). Explain Leibniz's Approach to

Solving the Problem of Evil. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics

Education (TURCOMAT), 12(13), 7569-7576.

https://turcomat.org/index.php/turkbilmat/article/view/11130

Riviş-Tipei, I. (2020). The Problem of Evil Part One: Evil in Philosophical

Discourse. Journal of Humanistic and Social Studies, 11(2), 151-163.

Schmaltz, T. M. (2021). The indefinite in the Descartes-More correspondence. British

Journal for the History of Philosophy, 29(3), 453-471.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2020.1818055