God & Objective Morals

[FallentoReason]

Yes.. I agree that a being necessarily has to exist for that being to have any attributes... that's just intuitive. The problem is these attributes it actually holds, why, because I don't see any reason for God being this way instead of another. Could God have been internally infinitely Evil? If no, then what made it *necessary* for him to be infinitely Good?

Ah, now I understand your question. At this point, since I've taken no class nor done heavy individual study on a question this deep, take my words with a grain of salt.

The reason why God, as necessary being, must be both Being itself and Goodness itself is the absolute interlacing of the two: to exist is good.

"To exist is good"..? According to whom? And if I work backwards from this, I could say:

1) To exist is good
2) I exist
C) I am Being itself and Goodness itself a.k.a. God

God, as Being unlimited, would then equally be Goodness unlimited. In so far as you exist, you are good. Even a demon, in so far as he exists, is good.

No, according to your own logic, if we took the definition of a demon and came to a conclusion, we would most likely get "to exist is evil".

"To exist is good" is a meaningless statement, as something necessarily needs to exist to do anything, and I don't see how existence itself is good.

Can Being exist separate from Good? No. If Being were separate from Good, then existence is in itself literally "worth-less". God's own existence, much like a DCT ethics, is now arbitrary, and thus without reason. This begs the question, "Why the system in the first place?".

You still haven't actually answered why God necessarily had to be this way. His mere existence defining him as ultimate "Good" is a non-sequitur, because he necessarily needed to exist to be anything: good, evil, green, unicorn-like. You seem to say existence is sufficient to be good, in which case I argued that, according to you, I am God, as is everyone. If you say "no no, but God is the definition of 'Good'" then we're right back at square one; what made it necessary(?), because existence alone doesn't entail that he necessarily had to be good. Existence is necessary for attributes, but for good..? That begs the question.

---

There cannot be an exterior to God. As I have stated, everything is within God. So the standard of comparison is the fullness of what is.

Sounds like circular reasoning: God's nature necessarily had to reflect the "fullness of what [he is]", which is (presumably) defined by his nature.

If the standard is within the being itself, then its attributes cease to be necessary, since the standard is embedded within itself! Also, circular logic is invalid which can only mean that what you're trying to say(/subconsciously do) is use the definition of the being, which (by definition) seems *intrinsically* arbitrary, and get it out of the "arbitrariness" it finds itself to be in when there's no external condition dictating why his nature has to be the way it is.