The argument from power.

[Angrboda]

I think I've responded to this before that if God is essentially a perfection of all things then he has no values, as by being all things, he must essentially pull in all directions at once, ultimately resulting in no movement whatsoever. But God does pull in some directions, preferentially to others. Take for example your very words that he is these things in perfect harmony -- a harmony of anything can only be expressed in terms of values, so the appeal to perfect harmony is essentially circular. So the "Everything to Everyone" answer to me doesn't really cut it.

[Mystic]

Whether it cuts it or not to you or not make sense to you or makes sense, if an ultimate being exists, he is the origin and source of all things, such that his vision with respect to himself as what defines things.  If he lacked a single perfection in anything or any positive beauty exists not found in him, he would not be ultimate beauty. What they are and what are not with respect to him is what defines them and the magnitude of what they are is not really like a physical size but more like a numbering magnitude and beauty only he can see in full and assign.

As for morality, he is the Standard by which all standards are derived from, the ultimate love that all forms of love take on, and all morals are just forms of love. That's the answer, but I thought I would elaborate a little more then that.

[Minimalist]

if an ultimate being exists

That should be written this way:

IF an ultimate being exists.

[Angrboda]

In that case, if his values are only defined in terms of himself, that foundation is essentially circular and therefore vacuous, making his values not really meaningful values at all but simply an expression of arbitrary power.

[Mystic]

Not Really Jo.

IF you think about how you define love, you constantly are looping through it to define it. You never define love outside it's experience. Everything also has a judgement from love.

Everything even these words I write, you will judge by whatever hue and magnitude and form of love you have.

God is the Standard by which all standards are derived from is not only a perfect answer, it's the proper answer.

[Angrboda]

Nonsense. Love is defined with reference to what I am as a biological being, not as an arbitrary construct, so your analogy actual underscores the problem instead of dissolves it.

I don't think you appreciate the problem here. A lack of foundations means that God's values are no more privileged than mine are. If that's the case, ultimately you're undermining your argument that God's perceptions are somehow accurate, more accurate than mine, because you've eliminated any possible means of deriving that result.

Ask yourself this, why is love the foundation?

[Mystic]

Nonsense.  Love is defined with reference to what I am as a biological being, not as an arbitrary construct, so your analogy actual underscores the problem instead of dissolves it.

I don't think you appreciate the problem here.  A lack of foundations means that God's values are no more privileged than mine are.  If that's the case, ultimately you're undermining your argument that God's perceptions are somehow accurate, more accurate than mine, because you've eliminated any possible means of deriving that result.

Ask yourself this, why is love the foundation?

I never said it was arbitrary.

I think I explained it as well as I could. I believe if I get into too much mysticism Ibn Arabi or Rumi style, it will confuse people.

God by definition is to be valued above all else, if he exists. If morality was more important then him, it would be god with him, but morality is important because God is the light of all light.

God through his name created everything through his blessed name and image and light, such that everything got it's name with respect to his name.

To put it simple "God is the light of that which guides all creation and illuminates their very form and nature and gives everything it's creation by his truth".

[Angrboda]

If that's where you need to go, then that's where you need to go. Otherwise I don't think you can blame others if they balk at partially formed proofs when the fault is really yours.

You never said it's arbitrary, and I don't believe I accused you of such. Those would be my words, not yours.

And you didn't answer the question. Why is love the foundation? If God is to be valued above all else by definition, then you've simply capitulated the argument, as definitions as such are arbitrary.

[Mystic]

I think if you realize love, it values love above all else, and so appreciation is circular in that regard. Love appreciate love above all else and it has nothing but love to justify it.

[Angrboda]

I think if you realize love, it values love above all else, and so appreciation is circular in that regard.  Love appreciate love above all else and it has nothing but love to justify it.

Again, love has a foundation in humans. It does not appear so with God. If that's the end of it, then you've made my argument for me.