In this paper, I will be discussing the argument from design and how Bertrand Russell responds to it; he states that if this is the greatest possible world that God has created, he is clearly lacking omniscience and omnipotence. Furthermore I will discuss how Gottfried Leibniz’s would object to Russell’s statement regarding the argument from design and that how God created the greatest possible world. Finally, I will examine Russell’s possible response to Leibniz’s objection and how he reasons that all the bad in the world does not outweigh the good. The argument from design is that “everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it” (Russell, 56). Russell objects to this statement and says that living beings adjust to the environment that they are in, and that is why the world is a good fit for everyone. An example is evolution, and how beings adapted from monkeys to humans based on the environment they lived in. Russell also states that if this is the world that God created for us to live in, he is clearly lacking power and knowledge. God is lacking power and knowledge because if God this is greatest possible that he created why does it have so …show more content…
Russell would argue Leibniz’s views about God, and how God created evil in the world for a reason and that the evil weights out the good. Russell would state that all the bad that has happened and is still happening in the world does not weight out the good. For example, the atrocities committed by the Islamic state against innocent people. Another example is in World War II, and how Hitler initiated the ethnic cleansing of millions of innocent Jews. These two examples are way too big of a cause to overshadow the good. In this case Russell would say that there is no way that a powerful and knowledgeable God would create a world full of