God & Objective Morals

[FallentoReason]

"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

I describe existing as "participation in Existence". I am not Existence itself, but the "I" definitely depends upon it at all times.

Something can't "participate in existence" if it first didn't exist so that it could participate "in existence". And... "Existence itself"??? All of this is meaningless, as in, I can't make sense of any of it because my understanding of existence is apparently very different to yours:

An object simply exists. It doesn't "participate" in this existence as if it had the choice to *not* participate, because to say a non-existent object "doesn't participate in existence" is already assuming it exists somewhere so that it can have the property of "non-participation in existence".

This isn't the proof part, this is the assertion I'm about to try to prove. And, if "to exist is good" is true, the demon, even though the actions are always evil, in so far as "the demon exists", "the demon is good". It is only good in that respect though.

"To exist is good" is still a meaningless statement to me. It carries as much meaningless as "to exist is funny". What's so intrinsically good about existence?

This is where I was worried. I don't know how to answer other than "there is Good, all things are derivative of God, therefore Good is derivative of God".

Game over. You've conceded that there exists something *exterior* to God: "Good". Except you want to make this exterior thing dependent on God, which now means we can play the game of circular reasoning: God's nature necessarily reflects "Good" which was made from God's nature which necessarily reflects "Good" which was made from God's nature which necessarily reflects "Good" which was made from God's nature... ad infinitum.

I pondered over "when you exist, you must exist in a certain way (lizard, human, angel, maggot, whatever), and Existence's certain way is Good" and then argue by analogy, but I didn't get far with that either. If there was no universe and I removed even my own existence from the picture, I don't think we could know that there is a God without some sort of signifying evidence.

It's as if this entire project is destined for self-refutation, isn't it!