The highest good exists therefore there is a God

[bahman]

The highest good is either reachable or not. If it is reachable then any being can become Godly so the argument fails. If not, there is always a better good no matter how much God is good, so the argument fails as well.

[Sculptor]

BY what reason can you associate god with goodness?

[bahman]

BY what reason can you associate god with goodness?

That is what Catholics believe: Goodness is existence, God exists, therefore God is goodness.

[Lacewing]

Goodness is existence, God exists, therefore God is goodness.

That doesn't make any sense. It's just making up stuff and claiming where it leads.

[Sculptor]

BY what reason can you associate god with goodness?

That is what Catholics believe: Goodness is existence, God exists, therefore God is goodness.

No. I do not think that is true.

Even if it was I asked why YOU associate god with goodness. Are you Catholic?

[bahman]

Goodness is existence, God exists, therefore God is goodness.

That doesn't make any sense. It's just making up stuff and claiming where it leads.

For the first premise, they think that evil is the absence of good. For example, It is good to have sight so blindness is evil which is the absence of sight. The same applies to existence. It is good to exist, evil is the absence of good, therefore evil is nonexistent. Actually, I had a hard time explaining that there is a difference between bad and evil. Evil to me is the opposite of good rather than the absence of good. They have several arguments for the existence of God, for example, the five ways of Aquinas. So the argument follows if we accept the two premises.

[bahman]

BY what reason can you associate god with goodness?

That is what Catholics believe: Goodness is existence, God exists, therefore God is goodness.

No. I do not think that is true.

What do you think is not true?

Even if it was I asked why YOU associate god with goodness. Are you Catholic?

I am not. I am attacking their argument for the existence of the highest good.

[Lacewing]

Goodness is existence, God exists, therefore God is goodness.

That doesn't make any sense. It's just making up stuff and claiming where it leads.

the argument follows if we accept the two premises.

Yes, we can... and do... claim all sorts of nonsense premises to arrive at nonsense conclusions. We seem to have become masters at it, in service to ourselves.

[Sculptor]

That is what Catholics believe: Goodness is existence, God exists, therefore God is goodness.

No. I do not think that is true.

What do you think is not true?

What you just said FFS

Even if it was I asked why YOU associate god with goodness. Are you Catholic?

I am not. I am attacking their argument for the existence of the highest good.

You are attacking a strawman.

Let's review the situation
I asked YOU, why you equate goodness with god.
Then you say because catholics say so.
Then you made a statement about catholics in mode detail
I said that was not true
then you now distance yourself from your original statement equating god with goodness..
What Drugs are you on, and how can I get some?

Why don't you say what you think.

[Sculptor]

Goodness is existence, God exists, therefore God is goodness.

That doesn't make any sense. It's just making up stuff and claiming where it leads.

For the first premise, they think that evil is the absence of good. For example, It is good to have sight so blindness is evil which is the absence of sight. The same applies to existence. It is good to exist, evil is the absence of good, therefore evil is nonexistent. Actually, I had a hard time explaining that there is a difference between bad and evil. Evil to me is the opposite of good rather than the absence of good. They have several arguments for the existence of God, for example, the five ways of Aquinas. So the argument follows if we accept the two premises.

Why not support your statements with some sort of reference so that it can be taken in context, not just your strawman version of it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The highest good is either reachable or not. If it is reachable then any being can become Godly so the argument fails. If not, there is always a better good no matter how much God is good, so the argument fails as well.

I have not come across such an argument.

Generally the theistic argument starts from experience leading to an infinite regress.
The infinite regress in an impossibility, therefore there must be something to initiate whatever; that something is GOD, - unmoved mover, the final cause, and the like.

To stop the infinite regress God must be omnipotent and omni-whatever-positive.
Thus God is omni-Good, i.e. the highest Good.

The counter to the above argument is that of equivocation fallacy of things from the empirical to the transcendental [beyond and impossible to be empirical]. QED.

[bahman]

That doesn't make any sense. It's just making up stuff and claiming where it leads.

For the first premise, they think that evil is the absence of good. For example, It is good to have sight so blindness is evil which is the absence of sight. The same applies to existence. It is good to exist, evil is the absence of good, therefore evil is nonexistent. Actually, I had a hard time explaining that there is a difference between bad and evil. Evil to me is the opposite of good rather than the absence of good. They have several arguments for the existence of God, for example, the five ways of Aquinas. So the argument follows if we accept the two premises.

Why not support your statements with some sort of reference so that it can be taken in context, not just your strawman version of it?

Ok, let's start with Anselm's argument:

1) By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2) A being that necessarily exists, in reality, is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3) Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5) Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6) God exists in the mind as an idea.
7) Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

What I am arguing is that the highest does not exist so his argument fails.

[bahman]

The highest good is either reachable or not. If it is reachable then any being can become Godly so the argument fails. If not, there is always a better good no matter how much God is good, so the argument fails as well.

I have not come across such an argument.

Generally the theistic argument starts from experience leading to an infinite regress.
The infinite regress in an impossibility, therefore there must be something to initiate whatever; that something is GOD, - unmoved mover, the final cause, and the like.

To stop the infinite regress God must be omnipotent and omni-whatever-positive.
Thus God is omni-Good, i.e. the highest Good.

The counter to the above argument is that of equivocation fallacy of things from the empirical to the transcendental [beyond and impossible to be empirical]. QED.

Please see my response to Sculptor here.

[Sculptor]

For the first premise, they think that evil is the absence of good. For example, It is good to have sight so blindness is evil which is the absence of sight. The same applies to existence. It is good to exist, evil is the absence of good, therefore evil is nonexistent. Actually, I had a hard time explaining that there is a difference between bad and evil. Evil to me is the opposite of good rather than the absence of good. They have several arguments for the existence of God, for example, the five ways of Aquinas. So the argument follows if we accept the two premises.

Why not support your statements with some sort of reference so that it can be taken in context, not just your strawman version of it?

Ok, let's start with Anselm's argument:

1) By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2) A being that necessarily exists, in reality, is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3) Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5) Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6) God exists in the mind as an idea.
7) Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

What I am arguing is that the highest does not exist so his argument fails.

You have not shown that.
This argument does not reflect the thread title, since it makes no mention of "goodness".
Anslem does not provide an "argument" but just a list of distorted claims.
I do not think serious philosophers take any of this seriously anymore - especially since Spinoza.

[bahman]

Why not support your statements with some sort of reference so that it can be taken in context, not just your strawman version of it?

Ok, let's start with Anselm's argument:

1) By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2) A being that necessarily exists, in reality, is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3) Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5) Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6) God exists in the mind as an idea.
7) Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

What I am arguing is that the highest does not exist so his argument fails.

You have not shown that.

This is due to Cantor. Please read this.

This argument does not reflect the thread title, since it makes no mention of "goodness".

If the greatest is not the greatest good then one can imagine the greatest evil following his argument. That is problematic.

Anslem does not provide an "argument" but just a list of distorted claims.

For example?