This analysis challenges the premise that God could create a better world, suggesting skepticism is warranted.
The “Argument from Surpassability” (AFS) concludes that God does not exist based upon the premises that 1) If God exists, he would only create a world if there is no better world that he could have created instead and 2) If God exists, he could have created a better world than this one. Given the seemingly widespread perception that (2) is unassailable, most responses to the (AFS) have focused on (1). In this paper, I will argue for the contrary approach: regardless of whether any rejections of (1) have thus far been successful, (2) should not be affirmed, on grounds of skepticism. We do not know whether our world is surpassable and therefore do not know whether God, if he exists, could have created better.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Slater Simek (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: