The argument from power.

[Mystic]

God is ultimate love...and the source of love in humans.... Why is it we can define everything in love through love, but if he is love he can't define it through his vision of love which is himself?

[Angrboda]

Because as I've explained, that makes it essentially vacuous, withdrawing his privilege in the sphere of values, and ultimately making the idea of accurate praise incoherent by virtue of a plurality of values, none of which is privileged above others, nor necessarily any that are ultimately justified.

[Mystic]

I think being ultimate love means he is the ultimate judge of all values at all levels and all hues of beauty is seen by him. That is because when he sees himself, he also sees all possibilities of what he is/is not type mix as well.

I don't really quite understand why that would make vacuous or empty.

Why is morality and standards assumed to be lifeless?

Life and morality go together like peanut butter and jelly (I like honey with peanut butter more, but just for the analogy).

[Angrboda]

I think being ultimate love means he is the ultimate judge of all values at all levels and all hues of beauty is seen by him. That is because when he sees himself, he also sees all possibilities of what he is/is not type mix as well.

So God's perception is accurate because God's perception is accurate? How is that not circular and vacuous?

Anyway, I'm going to break for a while. Maybe I'll be more forthcoming on that point at another time.

I don't really quite understand why that would make vacuous or empty.

Why is morality and standards assumed to be lifeless?

Life and morality go together like peanut butter and jelly (I like honey with peanut butter more, but just for the analogy).

[Mystic]

Ok, I think God is the justification for the "why" there is justification, and the justification for himself, and the meaning for himself. What is the justification of love and morality in your scenario?

As he is the ultimate meaning for himself, he out of his compassion and grace created us to worship him, so that he can bestow upon on his love and grace and make us appreciate ourselves, God and others.

[The Grand Nudger]

Life and morality go together like peanut butter and jelly (I like honey with peanut butter more, but just for the analogy).

Exactly, no gods required.

[LadyForCamus]

As will power is essential to goodness, it must have a reliable source for goodness to have proper accurate meaning.
Without God giving power it does not have a reliable source.
Goodness has a proper accurate meaning.
Therefore God exists.


The three premises need elaboration, I will post one post per premise elaborating on them.


I will ask people to check validity of argument before the premises are debated or elaborated.

The argument can rephrased:

Praise to have accurate meaning, will power part of it must have a reliable source.
Without God giving power it does not have a reliable source.
Praise has a proper accurate meaning.
Therefore God exists.

Will elaborate on each premise once we get past the over all structure validity.

[Mystic]

I see the great Lady is still seeking enlightenment.

[The Grand Nudger]

Shame you have none to offer, huh?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's rather impossible for greatness and praise to have meaning were it not that unifying source that is the ultimate of all things.

If God is 'the ultimate of all things', you will need to demonstrate how God can be ultimately good and ultimately evil, ultimately ordered and ultimately chaotic, ultimately merciful and ultimately just, etc.  Logically, a being can't be one thing and its opposite. 

Boru