God & Objective Morals

[Tex]

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.

I agree with this completely. Aquinas lists things as ens reale and ens rationis to distinguish between the two senses of "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.

It was just a definition.

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?

If God stops giving existence in this system, Tex is not.

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.

I tentatively agree. However, there are things external to God, so we can tell what God is like through those externals.

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

Wonderful.

Breathing and living is the existence in which I participate.

Begging the question. You assume an "I" to breath and live.

Yep, with definitions like this who hasn't experienced god? I just keep calling it things like my dog, my friend and my car. In fact I'm typing on god right now. Of course the bible is god too but then again so is every other book. If god is everything, should we shit can the dictionary or should we just go on calling everything by its separate name for clarity's sake?

You know it's all in your head when your improv apologetics has lead you to invoke panentheism as a defence for Christianity. Yahweh will strike you down for your blasphemous ways(!), or will he, Mr. closet panentheist!

I do believe it takes effort to misunderstand my words to say this. I am not God. I am not part of God. The entirety of the universe is not God. The universe is not a part of God. All things not-God are external to God. God causes my existence and I am external to him. This is opposite of pantheism. There is no way I am any sort of pantheist.