God & Objective Morals

[Tex]

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".

If existence itself doesn't exist, there is nothing that exists. I am not existence, therefore existence is exterior to me and is being given to me by existence itself. Whether I want to or not, I participate in existence.

Unicorns do not participate in existence. One eye'd one horn'd flying purple people eaters do not participate in existence. The cat from "Cat in a Hat" does not participate in existence.

"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?

"To exist is good" means "there is objective qualitative value in existing".

Game over.

Yes, but not for this reason:

You've conceded that there exists something *exterior* to God: "Good".

God gives what is internal to himself. That is also how I participate in existence; it is giving.

The game is over and I do concede, not because I think I'm wrong, but I honestly have no idea how to prove "God is inherently Good" using the argument by necessary being. If I ever think of something, I'll make a argument in a new thread and we'll go from there.

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

Perhaps this specific one =)