God & Objective Morals

[FallentoReason]

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.

I don't understand why you personify "existence". To say "I am not existence" doesn't make any sense, because you can't assume such an identity. Something simply exists, but nothing can be "existence" itself. Such a thing has just as much right to be "existence" as you and I, because what do we lack that "existence" has? All three of us.. simply.. exist.

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.

The things you've mentioned participate in existence as concepts in our head. In reality, they do not exist.

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

It sounds like a subjective assertion to me, unless you can prove said assertion.

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.

Do you fade into non-existence when you don't give?

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.

I'll help you out and say it can't be proven. By now, our dialogue should have made you realise that the word "necessary" inherently depends upon external conditions. To say I necessarily had to eat an apple without giving a reason external to myself makes that necessity redundant. It's effectively an arbitrary action. Likewise with anything you can tell me about God. Objective morals, his nature, his attributes.. they're all arbitrary until you choose to identify for me what exists externally to God that dictates who God is, which then of course means we can all cut out the middle man and go to the source that controls God Almighty himself. Something that I'm assuming you wouldn't want to happen.

If I ever think of something, I'll make a argument in a new thread and we'll go from there.

I'm all ears