If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.
Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.

The disputable premise might be we know something about it but even atheists argue that God who allows suffering without benign purpose cannot be ultimate good. And they argue by some knowledge of the ultimate good to assert it cannot exist. At the end, no true knowledge of a transcendent goodness beyond our limits can be know without a connection! And if there is a connection than just as we exist on one hand what we are connected to exists as well!

If you wish to see elaboration to each premise, see the long but worth it thread.

(September 11, 2017 at 8:17 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.

This is where your argument fails. We do not know anything about any highest possible goodness yet alone that one even exists. Try defining what a highest possible goodness even is, which is the first necessary step to determining if it exists because you need to know what you are looking for.

We can know something about an abstract idea or concept without an actual instance of it having to exist. Perfect circles for example.

(September 11, 2017 at 8:25 am)Alex K Wrote: We can know something about an abstract idea or concept without an actual instance of it having to exist. Perfect circles for example.

That is true. Nothing to do with my argument, however, since I never said: "we cannot know anything about anything without it actually existing".

---

@Mathilda:

Hence, I talked about his name, in the other thread. That which defines and reminds us of God.

There is no highest possible goodness, it is fantasy.

Very short argument.

(September 11, 2017 at 8:33 am)mh.brewer Wrote: There is no highest possible goodness, it is fantasy.

Very short argument.

Denying the conclusion in an argument is a sign that person has nothing to say regarding the actual argument.

(September 11, 2017 at 8:35 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 8:33 am)mh.brewer Wrote: There is no highest possible goodness, it is fantasy.

Very short argument.

Denying the conclusion in an argument is a sign that person has nothing to say regarding the actual argument.

Your first premise was crap and not a basis for an argument/proof.

Here's the cognitive flip:

1) People have feelings about things. They call the feelings they like "good."
2) People extend feelings into systems of thoughts. They now have ideas they call "good."
3) People imagine goodness to be a property of feelings, thoughts or things.
4) People say, "There must be a perfect feeling / thought / thing," so when they have the feelings and ideas already mentioned, they feel they are coming "into contact" with something which has the property of goodness.

Goodness is NOT in fact a property of things, except in our subjective evaluations of them. To know goodness, know yourself. There's nothing to connect to, reach out to, discover, adhere to, conform to, obey, or share your loot with. "Good" is ultimately always just going to be a word that means "what I like."

(September 11, 2017 at 8:37 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 8:35 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Denying the conclusion in an argument is a sign that person has nothing to say regarding the actual argument.

Your first premise was crap and not a basis for an argument/proof.

So we can know something about ultimate goodness (whatever it is) without a connection to it?

---

(September 11, 2017 at 8:39 am)bennyboy Wrote: Goodness is NOT in fact a property of things, except in our subjective evaluations of them.  To know goodness, know yourself. 

Sir, I see a contradiction between the 1st sentence and the 2nd. Do I need to elaborate?

Well, it was indeed short. 
Good on you for that.

Now, if you could just manage to demonstrate that what you and these supposed "messengers" know, is in fact, TRUE and CORRECT....then you'd actually be getting somewhere.