Final answer:
The claim that Hick concludes the world is not well-adapted for soul-making is false. John Hick believes that the world's trials are necessary for spiritual growth, contrary to the claim of an all-good God creating only a perfect world. Philosophers such as Leibniz and Plato offer different insights, suggesting that the world may be the best possible or that its imperfections contrast with a world of perfect forms.
Step-by-step explanation:
Regarding the statement 'Hick concludes that this world is not well-adapted to the purpose of soul-making', the assertion is false. John Hick's philosophical stance is that our world is indeed a place of 'soul-making'. Hick's theodicy posits that this world, with its inherent suffering and challenges, is necessary for spiritual and moral development. This notion contrasts with the idea that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God would create only a world that is the best possible. Hick suggests that the difficulties we face are essential for growth and align with the concept of a world under continuous creation, where our experiences serve to shape and improve our souls.
Other philosophical perspectives, such as those of Leibniz and Plato, offer different viewpoints. Leibniz argued that this world, despite the existence of evil, could still be the best possible world. Plato, on the other hand, described the physical world as a flawed representation of a perfect world of forms. These ideals indicate that the material world and its imperfections are necessary for a greater purpose or reflect a less perfect state compared to an abstract realm of ideas.