This idea is known as the "possible worlds" hypothesis.
Leibniz is more commonly found to have originally spoke on the idea of possible worlds. In his theodicy he argued in conclusion that this is the best possible world God could have made. I think the idea of 'possible worlds' was made more renowned from David Lewis's theory which amounted to a concretist view.
The idea is simple: this world must be one nearly an infinite number of "possible worlds.
I do not find the idea of possible worlds simple at all. Normally two questions are put forth to those who espouse a PW argument:
• What is a possible world?
• What is it for something to exist in a possible world?
There are three typical stances on PW, one of which is concretism as mentioned, abstractionism, and the other combinatorialism. Each stance has contrasting answers and implications for the questions asked, making PW theory more confusing.
For example, there's a possible world where the sky is green instead of blue, and so on.
On an abstractionist view, the PW where the sky is green would be further illustrated with increasing successions to the depiction in order to come to the most complex way things could possibly be. So, the sky would be green; the sunrise, however, would be a lighter shade of green; the night sky would be a dark purple, and so on.
Isn't there one possible world, the anti-theist asks, where Adam and Eve don't take and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or where the vast majority of God's creatures "freely choose" to obey his commands?
The anti-theist would have to account for the two questions raised above for the question to even be answerable.
But there's a fatal flaw in the argument: if God deliberately creates a "possible world" in order to elicit a certain action that he wants from people (such as Adam/Eve not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) then in reality such creatures don't really have "free choice" at all.
This is only true under libertarianism, which has not been further supported by any evidence or reason. You would have to show that is what free will means in order for this to hold any weight. As it is now you're simply assuming.
Therefore, God can't create such a world because any creatures that he created would only have the illusion of free choice!
Now, you would have to tread carefully here as saying God cannot do something may negate omnipotence. Are you saying God logically cannot create a state of affairs in which He is a factor of human free will? Or are you saying God does not do such? Answering the former will get you a negation of omnipotence. Answering the other will save you from that, though it is still incorrect (two others have even pointed this out).
I propose that God does exactly that: human free choice is completely independent of God, which is the way it has to be for anyone to really have free choice.
You can propose that but so far you have not presented reason to warrant that it is true. In fact there is only evidence against libertarianism. The Bible makes clear God is a factor of human free will. God chooses us, and not the converse.
Ephesians 1:4-5 -
Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will
Romans 8:29 - For those whom
he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers
John 15:16 - Y
ou did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you
2 Timothy 1:9 -
Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began
If human free choice is completely independent of God, then there is no such thing as a "possible worlds hypothesis."
Human choice is not completely independent of God. The reason the PW argument is wrong being free will is independent of God is faulty, and thus cannot be used. I wouldn't even mention a concept of free will unless necessary, instead I would challenge the coherence of the PW situation by asking the anti-theist the two questions and trying to criticize from there.
