I find any reasoning arriving at a conclusion that this is the best possible world extraordinary and I don't think I'm the only one, e.g. the success of Voltaire's Candide. Not following this: if two people - of all the people in the world - are the two tallest persons, then they share the attribute of being the tallest person in the world. Saying that they aren't (or don't) does not conform with reality. And again, if Peter is "the only man in the world, and Paul [is], the only man in the world", that is still possible if this person's name is Peter Paul of Paul Peter. But indeed. this being mere examples. it's no big deal. (This is what I meant with bringing up examples: I rather see a problem with these examples than with what they're supposed to be exemplifying. One might think of a better example or dispense with them.) Well, philosophers - and scientists - seem prone to inventing new words. In this case, I gather it to be a hybrid of coexistent/coexistence combined with possible/possibility. Indeed, but Plotinus seems rather keen of the concept of God in the 'traditional' sense. I agree that there are quite a few people around who believe in God, but do not agree with Leibniz' conclusion - nor with the 'traditional' attributes of God. Only in the eyes of 'the church' does that make them blasphemous heretics. That would appear to be a rather theocratic, not philosophical approach. Obviously, for Leibniz it was a necessary part of his definition, as it is part of the reasoning behind this being the best of all possible worlds. Within that strict definition that may be true, but outside it it just plain doesn't make sense.