Very short version of the long argument.

[bennyboy]

Sir, I see a contradiction between the 1st sentence and the 2nd. Do I need to elaborate?

Yes.

---

I elaborate on them, people say too long. I make it short, and people want elaboration. There is no pleasing you guys. I support them in length and people are like o man he has to write so much. I make it short and people are like, where is the elaboration to support. 

Listen to your girlfriend when she tells you size doesn't matter. What matters is that you are ready to give her what she needs. Nor does it matter if you work away for ten minutes or ten hours-- your clumsy efforts just aren't going to get her there.

"Goodness" is a subjective label, a placeholder for whatever pleases. You can't come into contact with it, or get to know it, because it isn't a thing. Nor do all your futile stabbings in the dark bring any of us closer to it.

[Minimalist]

I don't know, M/K.  In your desperation to demonstrate to us or yourself that your bullshit is true you seem to be getting nuttier and nuttier.  Seek professional help before it is too late.

And by "professional" I mean a psychiatrist...not some fucking imam in a stupid hat.

[Homeless Nutter]

@Mathilda:

Hence, I talked about his name, in the other thread. That which defines and reminds us of God.

So basically - bullsh*t your goat-fondling ancestors made up is the "highest possible goodness"? LOL...

It never seizes to amaze me, how you don't see the circular nature of your "reasoning". Nothing "defines and reminds us of god". It's all in your head (and the heads of other infantile dullards) - you're just so addicted to an imaginary c*ck up your bottom, that you can't comprehend the fact that none of your inane, pious bleating means anything to people who haven't been brainwashed into your particular fairy-tale system since childhood. I feel sorry for you... At least some delusional simpletons, like Little Rik are somewhat amusing - you're just boring and depressing...

[Edwardo Piet]

You can't deny conclusion in an argument. You have to deal with the premises.

You can deny a conclusion by pointing out that it doesn't follow from its premises.

[LadyForCamus]

If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.
Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.

The disputable premise might be we know something about it but even atheists argue that God who allows suffering without benign purpose cannot be ultimate good. And they argue by some knowledge of the ultimate good to assert it cannot exist. At the end, no true knowledge of a transcendent goodness beyond our limits can be know without a connection! And if there is a connection than just as we exist on one hand what we are connected to exists as well!

If you wish to see elaboration to each premise, see the long but worth it thread.

Bold mine.  I certainly don't accept this premise.  I could feel a deep, personal connection to unicorns or Santa, but that doesn't mean those things necessarily exist in reality.   It only means that they exist, in concept, in my mind.  Just like your god.

---

If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.
Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.

The disputable premise might be we know something about it but even atheists argue that God who allows suffering without benign purpose cannot be ultimate good. And they argue by some knowledge of the ultimate good to assert it cannot exist. At the end, no true knowledge of a transcendent goodness beyond our limits can be know without a connection! And if there is a connection than just as we exist on one hand what we are connected to exists as well!

If you wish to see elaboration to each premise, see the long but worth it thread.

What's disputable is your assumption that some intangible value or idea that you've labeled "ultimate goodness" exists in the first place.  You have to demonstrate that it's an actual thing before you can draw any truthful conclusions from an argument that uses it in its premises.

[Succubus]

If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.
Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.

Is this plagiarism I see?

1. Premise 1: It is possible to conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, namely God.
   
2. Premise 2: It is possible to conceive of a being that must exist, that is, a necessary being.
   
3. Premise 3: It is possible to conceive of a being that may not exist, that is, a contingent being.
   
4. Premise 4: A necessary being is greater than a contingent being.
   
5. Premise 5: Since God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived and a necessary being is greater than a contingent being, God is a necessary being.
   

Therefore God exists.

Is there a copyright lawyer in the house?

[Astreja]

There is no highest possible goodness, it is fantasy.

Very short argument.

It's good turtles all the way up.  

[Astonished]

If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.
Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.

The disputable premise might be we know something about it but even atheists argue that God who allows suffering without benign purpose cannot be ultimate good. And they argue by some knowledge of the ultimate good to assert it cannot exist. At the end, no true knowledge of a transcendent goodness beyond our limits can be know without a connection! And if there is a connection than just as we exist on one hand what we are connected to exists as well!

If you wish to see elaboration to each premise, see the long but worth it thread.

Even if we did know about the theoretical highest possible goodness, no description of any god in any religion ever conceived fits that theoretical description. Try again.

[Minimalist]

The highest possible goodness is a blow job from a 10.

[Mystic]

Sir, I see a contradiction between the 1st sentence and the 2nd. Do I need to elaborate?

Yes.

If who you are is objective knowledge to goodness, then it's not relative.

---

If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.
Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.

The disputable premise might be we know something about it but even atheists argue that God who allows suffering without benign purpose cannot be ultimate good. And they argue by some knowledge of the ultimate good to assert it cannot exist. At the end, no true knowledge of a transcendent goodness beyond our limits can be know without a connection! And if there is a connection than just as we exist on one hand what we are connected to exists as well!

If you wish to see elaboration to each premise, see the long but worth it thread.

Bold mine.  I certainly don't accept this premise.  I could feel a deep, personal connection to unicorns or Santa, but that doesn't mean those things necessarily exist in reality.   It only means that they exist, in concept, in my mind.  Just like your god.

---

If we know to some degree something about the highest possible goodness there is a connection to it.
If there is a connection to it, it exists.
We do know something about the highest possible goodness.
Therefore there is a connection it.
Therefore it exists.

The disputable premise might be we know something about it but even atheists argue that God who allows suffering without benign purpose cannot be ultimate good. And they argue by some knowledge of the ultimate good to assert it cannot exist. At the end, no true knowledge of a transcendent goodness beyond our limits can be know without a connection! And if there is a connection than just as we exist on one hand what we are connected to exists as well!

If you wish to see elaboration to each premise, see the long but worth it thread.

What's disputable is your assumption that some intangible value or idea that you've labeled "ultimate goodness" exists in the first place.  You have to demonstrate that it's an actual thing before you can draw any truthful conclusions from an argument that uses it in its premises.

What you are using the word "connection" as it is not what I meant. Words have different meanings in different contexts. And that is not my meaning.

---

That is true. Nothing to do with my argument, however, since I never said: "we cannot know anything about anything without it actually existing".

But yes you do, isn't that precisely the first part of your very argument?!? "We know something about X -> X exists"

No, even in the brief elaboration, I made no generalizations, I talked about transcendent nature of goodness in this regard to emphasize why would we need a connection. I can go more details if you like.