1. Pre-existence = non-existence
2. Post-existence = non-existence
3. Pre-existence = post-existence — Yohan

You should be careful with "=" signs. It means "identical", which is not the case here. Pre-existence has non-existence as a property, but is not identical with it. Pre-existence implies a thing will exist eventually. Non-existence does not imply that. With that, point 3 does not follow from points 1 and 2. Consider this other example:

1. A unicorn has non-existence,
2. A phoenix has non-existence, therefore
3. A unicorn is a phoenix.

Point 3 is not true.

But if I truly didn't exist before, yet now I do, then I came into being from nothing... — Yohan

Why from nothing? Why not from your parents?

Could we call non-being a sort of being at rest?
If so, something must have "pushed" me into activity, into a "being".
This implies that "non-being" is actually a sort of proto-being. — Yohan

This sounds like the notions of Essence vs Existence. A unicorn has an essence - it is defined - but does not have existence; although it could. If it begins to exist, then existence is added to the essence. On the other hand, a meaningless notion like a "triangle-that-is-not-a-triangle" has neither essence nor existence, and cannot ever have existence.

Absolutely nothing should remain absolutely nothing, forever..... unless this "nothing" is not truly nothing. — Yohan

This sounds correct. For even an essence without existence is not nothing, and is therefore a being, when a being is defined as "that which is not nothing".

Just because you can imagine your consciousness being separate from your body doesn't mean that this really can be the case. — SophistiCat

Yeah I agree.
The laws of logic are really called "laws of thoughts", and as such, the test of imagination is an effective way to determine if the thing imagined is logically possible. I.e. if imaginable then possible, and unimaginable then impossible. That said, a thing being possible does not mean it is actual.

I don't believe the "I" is eternal, for it begins to exist, but I believe it survives death.
Let's assume as the starting point that we have free will, then here is the argument.

• All that is physical is determined by the laws of physics and only that (otherwise these laws would not be laws).
• To have free will is to not be determined, by definition.
• Therefore the thing possessing free will is not physical.

Since death is, as far as we know, only a physical event, it does not apply to non-physical things, and thus the "I" survives death.

I think it could maybe be argued that the unhappiness that results from such behaviour causes a reduction in the amount of information produced - people who are down in the dumps/unhappy/depressed generate less (high quality) information than happy people? — Devans99

Hmmm... Is this claim ad hoc, or is it defendable?
On another related note, would you make the distinction between true and false information? Such as real news vs fake news, or correct vs incorrect belief systems.

That seems consistent. I'll keep testing your hypothesis. Let's say a person did not kill people like Hitler, but tortured people a lot and made them miserable. He also lied, cheated, and kicked puppies in the face. I would imagine it reasonable to call this person a bad person, and yet no information was lost in this case.

Hello.

information is the meaning of life — Devans99

By that, do you mean that our life's purpose is to gather and produce information?

Here is my objection. For any thing that has a purpose, we call that thing "good" when it fulfills its purpose correctly, and "bad" otherwise. E.g. the purpose of a paper-cutter is to cut paper. We call it a "good paper-cutter" when it is able to cut paper correctly, and a "bad paper-cutter" otherwise.

If the purpose of a person was merely to gather and produce information, then anybody that does that should be called a "good person". But that is absurd. I'm sure Hitler gathered and produced as much information as any other person (if not more, being that he is famous), but he is nearly-universally judged to be a bad person.

actually my conscious experience is that we often have no clue about our intentions, 'why did I do that?" "what was I thinking there?" — dazed

This happens to me too, but when I ask such questions, I mean it to say "even though I know my intentions were good (let's suppose), why did I believe that such act would lead to a good outcome?" Alternatively, it is possible to forget our intentions when they occurred a long time ago. E.g. I cannot tell you what my intentions were for an act that occurred 10 years ago (although I fully knew them back then).

Are you proposing that a "good" brain damaged person who is now prone to violence knows that they have good intentions even where they commit violent acts ? — dazed

This is a complex question, and the answer depends on the level of mental damage. The explanation below is a bit butchered but hopefully gets the point across.

• Low level of damage: I am oversensitive and thus more prone to access of anger, but I rationally know better, and therefore I would be responsible if I acted upon these oversensitive feelings.
• Medium level: I can no longer discern true from false perceptions. I can still intend to be good, but my false perceptions have convinced me that my neighbour is trying to kill me. Thus fighting him is perceived to me as being self-defence, which would not be immoral. It would be an error and I would be dangerous, but it would be an honest error.
• High level: All my rational powers have disappeared, and thus by extension also my power of intentions, leaving only the basic animal instincts. Although I am still alive, my rational self is no longer there. No more intentions means no more responsibilities.

Should we not imprison and jail such a person because they are in fact acting properly? how can we judge their acts since we don't have access to their intentions? — dazed

Technically speaking, since we cannot know other people's intentions with certainty, it follows we cannot judge their intentions. In christianity, only two beings are able to judge my heart: myself and God. However, we can judge the act in itself, and also put people in jail if we judge it is safer for society. Finally, we can still reasonably judge the intentions of others if we know them well. For one thing, we can ask them directly: "Did you intend to harm your neighbour?" -"Yep. He got on my nerves, and I never claimed to be a good person".

And what about the analogies with other complex primates? [...] — dazed

I think I can answer, but this is kind of a separate topic, so I suggest putting it on hold for now for the sake of keeping the discussion more focused.

in such a scenario, it's not actually our final acts that can be judged but rather our soul signals, but then how do we know when we are sinning or not since all we can experience is our acts and we can't experience our soul signals? — dazed

Good question. A common saying in christianity is that "God judges the heart of men"; where "heart" in religion is roughly equivalent to "intentions" in philosophy. As you say, we are not wholly responsible for our acts due to the brain's health, but we are wholly responsible for our intentions to act; intentions which come from our soul, and for which we are always in full control.

Much better than knowledge of our acts, we have full knowledge of our intentions; since by definition it comes from us.

Hello.
If I understand correctly, you are asking if, if it is possible for some constant to change, then can the laws of logic change too?

The answer is no, because asking if a thing is "possible" is to ask if it is "logically possible". Thus the statement "it is logically possible for logic to change" is nonsense. The laws of logic is the reference point around which everything can possibly change. The reference point cannot change around itself.

Is it not logically possible that the soul is the primary source of free act, but then the brain is also necessary for its final product? Consider the analogy of the brain, the tongue, and speaking a language. The primary source of the act of speaking is the brain, but the tongue is also necessary to produce the words.

Sounds good to me. It seems to only be a matter of definition of the term "being". Using the scholastic definition, being is "that which is not nothing". As such, if God is not nothing, then he is a being. It sounds like you use the term "being" the way I would use the term "creature", that is, "that which is created, or begins to exist".

Faith is uncritical, unquestionable belief. — Pfhorrest

I understand. But I persist to say that your definition of religion is therefore too broad, because sportball would be a religion for Alice and Bob in the second alternate universe; but this is not how people commonly use the term "religion", is it?

"Ultimate reality" is a topic that non-religious studies like physics and (irreligious) philosophy also investigate. — Pfhorrest

Actually the study of reality is metaphysics, not physics; and indeed it is not strictly religious. But that is why another essential component to "religion" is the act. The mere study of topics even about gods would be called theology, for which the theologian who does not act in accordance to the findings from the theology is technically not religious.

Well technically, disbelieving P and believing not-P are not equivalent; if we write it in functional notation that becomes clear, the opposite of believe(P) is not-believe(P), which is not necessarily equivalent to believe(not-P) — Pfhorrest

We need to make the distinction between the terms "disbelief" and "non-belief". A rock is in a state of non-belief, for it can neither believe nor disbelieve in anything. On the other hand, the proposition "disbelief in p" is the opposite to "belief in p". As opposites, they are also mutually exclusive.

I was saying that the Thomists think that. That wasn't my opinion, that was my report of their opinions. — Pfhorrest

I understand that you discuss the Thomists' view, which is not necessarily your own view. But my point was that Thomists, who are somewhat competent at logic, would not make the simple error to believe that reason supports faith when, under the definition of faith you have given, reason destroys faith.

Anyways, to close this part of discussion about what Thomists believe, here is an extract about Aquinas: "The theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas did not hold that faith is mere opinion: on the contrary, he held that it represents a mean (understood in the Platonic sense) between excessive reliance on science (i.e. demonstration) and excessive reliance on opinion." - Source.

Bro. If you think I misunderstood your claim the first time, then repeating it in the exact same way does not help my understanding. If you are merely saying that, since a proof by definition gives certainty, then an argument that gives probability or reasonableness is not a proof, then yes, I agree; but that is merely a tautology.

With that said, faith, the beliefs supported by the probable or the reasonable, is quite necessary. Very few beliefs are supported by absolute proofs.

The problem with using any terms other than "being" after the term "perfect" is that any other term is "defined", that is, has boundaries, is limited. E.g. a perfect maggot is just that, a maggot; which is not commonly seen as a high being on the ontological scale. So unless you claim that a person is the highest species ontologically, then it automatically ranks our god definition lower than the highest level.

That said, since god as I have defined possesses all abilities that exist (or more), and since persons exist, then god must possess the ability of persons too. But as the perfect being, it is not limited to possessing the abilities of persons only.

"religions are belief systems that appeal to faith" definition — Pfhorrest

The problem with this definition is that it is too broad. It sounds like believing in bigfoot, or believing that this football team will win tomorrow's game, are religions. On the other hand, adding "the gods and related topics" (along with behaviour) fixes that, and should be able to include Buddhism if the "related topics" include the after-life, ultimate reality, and such things.

there cannot be sufficient reason to believe anything, there can only be sufficient reasons to disbelieve things. — Pfhorrest

Don't these two claims contradict? To disbelieve in p is to believe in not-p. E.g. "I have good reasons to disbelieve in an atheistic world; this must mean that I believe in a god."

faith (even blind faith), as the vehicle of revelation, is a valid source of knowledge to tell you what is true, and that is strictly speaking sufficient for purposes of salvation and such, but reason is there to deepen your understanding of why it is true — Pfhorrest

I think your are attempting to say that reason can support faith; and even though I agree with this under my definition of faith, this cannot work under your definition: If faith is belief devoid of reason, and reason serves to explain the belief, then faith and reason are in contradiction, for a belief cannot be both without reason and with reason at the same time.

Just because Tom Aquinas says it doesn't make it so. All of these arguments are easily deconstructed these days: probability and reason cannot prove the contents of faith. — uncanni

Right back at you I'm afraid. Merely saying this doesn't make it so. There are many arguments that defend the objects of faith (I'm thinking particularly of the christian faith). The people doing so are called "apologetics", and they are still kicking to this day.

in the meantime I can at least relax in my favourite armchair (or God, as I call it). The armchair than which no greater armchair can exist. — Isaac

Supposing your armchair is indeed the perfect armchair, it still does not fit the definition of god I have given, because it is not perfect in every way. "4" is the perfect answer to the question "what is 2+2?". This does not make it god either.

God: Is that which nothing greater can exist; where "greater" means the most "powerful" in the sense of abilities. — Samuel Lacrampe

Ridding Anselm's notion of inconsistency is a work of ages... — Banno

I interpret your comment as saying that it is not a proper definition of god; is that right? Would you have a counterexample, in which the term "god" in the common language does not fit this definition? I would imagine that even for pantheistic religions, which belief is that all that exists is god, still fits under this definition.

If we define "religion" merely as "a response to the holy", then I suppose it is indeed only man-made. But this would omit religious acts and rituals, which I believe is essential, for a man is religious insofar that he acts according to the religious doctrine.

While I agree that the religious acts were created FOR humans, it is not always believed they were created BY humans. Unlike the disbelief that 2+2=4, I don't think that this religious belief constitutes a small minority. E.g. take christianity and the eucharist. The belief is that Jesus Christ is God, and that the ritual of the eucharist was instructed directly by Jesus. "Take this bread and eat, for this is my body". Similar rituals instructed by the gods are found in the other western religions as well.

I concede that since this discussion is about religions in general and not only about catholicism, then we may include "blind faith" as part of "faith". So "faith" could be defined in this context as: the beliefs regarding claims about the gods and related topics, which are not known with certainty to be true.

that just means that faith is any belief about religious topics, which would then make religion defined in reference to faith circularly defined. — Pfhorrest

I have removed the term "religion" from the above definition of "faith" to avoid any circularity.

The thing that distinguishes faithful belief from other belief is its independence of good reasons. Thomists may claim that you should strive also to have good reasons in addition to your faith, but that is just saying not to go on faith alone, as faith alone (without reason) is blind. Faith per se is thus exactly what they would call “blind faith”, and it is only in fortifying a belief with something besides faith that it becomes not blind. — Pfhorrest

But if faith is always blind faith, and you should not go on faith alone and should also use reason, then why use faith at all and not just always use reason instead? The Thomists are not that bad at logic.

Abilities? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, faster than a speeding bullet. Those abilities? Or do you mean that at the maximum of ability, nothing beyond that can exist? — tim wood

Mainly the latter. Of course this implies the former, but it is less important. Also I assume we are excluding dead religions like the ancient greek religions.

By "scientific (rational) study of truth," do you mean putting the question to what you suppose is the truth to see if it is - or can be - truth? — tim wood

Not sure I understand your question haha. To give my definition in other words, it is finding what conclusions can be inferred from divine revelations, which serve as the premises.

Religion: a set of behaviours. Based on? Entirely? Or does religion add to theology? — tim wood

Upon reflection, I now think the term has two meanings. (1) is the subject matter itself, and (2) is the practice based on the theology, as per my first definition. E.g. Christianity is a religion, but also a christian is religious strictly if he practices the acts described in the theology.

Let me know if any objections.

I believe faith applies to secular topics as well. E.g. trust that your spouse is not cheating without hiring an investigator to confirm, is a type of faith. That said, to stay on the topic of religion, we could say that "faith", in the context of this discussion, is the belief supported by the probable or the reasonable, regarding religious claims.

Faith is taking “because X said/thinks so”, i.e. the absence of any reason [...] — Pfhorrest

The christian catholics would not agree with this definition of faith. As described, this would be called "blind faith", which is not regarded as a good thing. As per Thomas Aquinas, faith falls between zero knowledge (ie blind faith) and certainty about an object. Strong faith is supported by reason; reason which, while not achieving a full proof, yields to the probable or the reasonable. Thus any act based on a belief supported by the probable or the reasonable is an act of faith, which is good; where as any act based on a belief devoid of any reason would be blind, which is foolish.

I must respectfully disagree, or point out that you may be jumping the gun by getting into the contents of this religion or that. — uncanni

I believe you are missing the point. The original goal as per the OP is to find statements that most groups agree with, and my point is that there are many groups which disagree with the statement that religions are always a human creation.

God:
Is that which nothing greater can exist; where "greater" means the most "powerful" in the sense of abilities.

Can we agree that believers can not precisely map out what they can know about the gods (because the gods are to some extent unknowable)? — Bitter Crank

Agreed. Although I believe my definition to be correct, it is indeed incomplete. As God would be a higher being that us, we could not fully grasp its concept.

Theology:
Is the scientific (rational) study of truth based on data from the gods, like the bible etc. I agree with @Bitter Crank that it is a human creation, and @180 Proof's definition. This does not imply subjectivity.

Religion:
Is the set of behaviour based on the findings of the theology. I agree with "180 Proof"'s definition again.

Whether the gods exist or not, religions [and rituals] are a human creation. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily. In some religions like christianity, judaism and islam, the belief is that the religious instructions were given by the gods, or else confirmed by the gods that the existing behaviours were good (like some ethical acts).

I'll try to explain the concept of the Trinity. First, no contradictions are allowed, even when talking about God, for contradictions represent an error in our thoughts, not a limitation in God.

Christianity is a monotheistic religion in which there is 1 God, the Trinity, which is composed of 3 Divine Persons. Although each Person has all the intrinsic properties of perfection such that they are all at the top of the ontological ladder, they are not in themselves God apart from the other Persons; and there never was an instant in time when one existed apart from the others.

To escape the objection that the 3 Persons are one and the same through the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles, each Person differ not in their intrinsic properties, but by the relationship each has with the other two Persons. The Father "begets" (creates a thing of the same nature) the Son, the Son is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son (in which the term "proceed" is quite technical so I won't describe here).

Fellow philosophers,

I will be very busy for the next couple of days, and will not be as responsive on this discussion as I would like to be. Sorry for the inconvenience. I hope to get back to it once my busy period is over, but I understand if you have moved on by then.

Keep it reasonable,
-Samuel

No. a statement, sentence, or a proposition (as a type of statement), is a collection of words which needs to be interpreted. And then, what is taken as the meaning is judged as true or false. That judgement is subjective, attributable to the subject.. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm still not sure I understand your meaning of the term 'judgement'. Could you perhaps give an example of judgement, and then in contrast, an example of proposition?

If agreement between us. concerning our judgements, makes our judgements "objective", then you are using a different meaning of "objective" than I, which I defined as "of the object". Agreement on judgements about the object doesn't make the agreement "of the object". — Metaphysician Undercover

It is not the agreement that makes a judgement objective. I think we are on the same page that 'objective' means "a property of the object independent of subjects", where as 'subjective' means "a view on the object dependant on the subject". E.g. the Earth was round before earthling subjects existed. Thus the judgement "the Earth is round" is objective.

If the "God's essence = God's existence" premise is excluded from those premises in the Fourth Way, then you are not authorized to defend the Fourth Way by saying that God "IS Moral Goodness" and the like, since claims "God is F-ness" depend on His essence's being identical with His existence. — pico

The Fourth Way argument goes as far as to prove that there must exist a being whose essence is moral goodness to the maximum degree. Then christians put on the label God as an afterthought, from passages in the bible like: "No one is good except God alone."

Yes, that is what I mean. I define subjective as of the subject, and objective as of the objective. Judgement is something that subjects do therefore all judgements are subjective. — Metaphysician Undercover

In your terminology, is a judgement that same as a proposition, that is, a sentence that can be either true or false? If that is the case, then the proposition "all judgements are subjective" is also a judgement, and is also subjective, and so cannot be objectively true. As such, the proposition is a self-contradiction.

Consider an octagon. [...] — Metaphysician Undercover

I admit that in this example, it is hard to judge if it is closer to a square or a circle. But the challenge here is due to the challenging example and not due to judgements always being subjective. Here is another easier example. In this drawing, is E closer to D or G? The objectively right answer is "E is closer to G than D". This statement is clearly objective.

Let's recap the comparisons so far between the Stone hypothesis S and the Christian hypothesis C.

• S is found figuratively; C is found literally, as least some of it.
• S is found in most religious books; C is also found in most religious books, at least for one of its two main commandments.
• S is about eternal life and health; C is primarily about the meaning of life, and secondarily about eternal life and the beginning and end of the world.
• S can only be proven true empirically through scientific experiments, and this it has not yet been done publicly; C can be proven true, or at least reasonable, rationally through philosophical arguments, and this has been done many times, like in the OP argument.

Conclusion: C is more reasonable and more ambitious than S. Following the Principle of Parsimony, in order to defend S, C needs to be refuted.

what you write in your second paragraph has not been established at the stage of Aquinas' arguing for God's existence. — pico

Maybe not, but my aim is merely to reconcile the conclusion in the argument from degree that perfect moral goodness exists which is what christians call God, and Aquinas' claim that God is not a member of any genus, by showing that the two are not incompatible.

It begs the question to claim that God's essence is identical with His existence and then to use that claim as a premise in an argument for God's existence like the Fourth Way. — pico

The Fourth Way, or argument from degree, is not dependant on the claim that God's essence is identical with His existence. The argument only depends on the definition of 'goodness' as defined in the OP, and the acceptance that moral goodness is objective.

Aquinas proves that God's essence is identical with His existence in his Second Way, which is an argument separate and independent from the Fourth Way.

How the bible should be interpreted: With regards to interpretation, not truth, the literal interpretation is always the simplest. Now regarding creation specifically, granted, the 6-day period is not to be taken literally, because it has been disproved by science. But the statement that God created the world out of nothing is supported by metaphysical arguments.

The Stone is referenced in the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, in Taoism, Buddhism, and in fact just about every mainstream religion. — Pilgrim

Unfortunately, the same argument can be used to support the christian interpretation of the bible. In christianity, one of the two Great Commandments is the Golden Rule: Love you neighbour as yourself. And the Golden Rule is found in some form in almost every ethical tradition. Source

Hello Mr Amateur. I accept your additional points on the bible.

To claim purpose we must look at the action of the thing as a part, with a function, in a larger context. So in relation to the human being, the eyes have a function, a purpose, and that is to see. The eyes, as a part of the human being, see for the human being, and that's why we can say that they have a purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover

I accept that distinction, that the purpose of the human parts are relative to the human being. That said, that kind of purpose is nevertheless objective. It would be wrong to say that the purpose of the eyes relative to the human being is not to see. ... Now it makes me wonder if all beings with a purpose must be a purpose towards another being ...

How does choosing something change it from subjective to objective? [...] Take your example of a circle. We decide to judge a shape for circularity rather than squareness. What, in your mind makes this type of goodness objective? We have some principles by which we determine circularity, but these exist in, and were created by, the minds of subjects, therefore they are subjective. — Metaphysician Undercover

It does not change from subjective to objective. It was never subjective in the first place; only relative to the perfect nature. The fact that these perfect natures of circle and square are not real outside the mind does not entail that the predicates about the shape must be subjective. Again, objectivity implies the possibility for either right or wrong, where as subjectivity cannot be neither right nor wrong. And for a given shape, it is either right or wrong that it is closer to a circle or a square.

The "essence" of a thing is how it is described by human beings. If a paper cutter's purpose is by definition to cut paper, then this is how human beings define "paper cutter". Definitions are produced by subjects, they are subjective. — Metaphysician Undercover

The only thing I can agree with you on, is that just because a paper-cutter is unable to cut paper, it does not follow that it is a bad being objectively; but it does follow that it is a bad paper-cutter objectively, by definition of paper-cutter. How's that?

The judgement of something as right or wrong is carried out by subjects, so such a judgement is necessarily subjective. — Metaphysician Undercover

You cannot mean that, can you? Since only subjects can judge, all judgements are carried out by subjects, including the judgement that "2+2=3 is wrong". Are you saying that this judgement is therefore subjective?

Let's talk epistemology. We really have two questions here. (1) Should the bible be interpreted the way you claim? and (2) is the stone real?

To answer question (1): I invoke the principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor. The christian hypothesis of interpreting the bible literally is a simpler one than your hypothesis of interpreting it figuratively. Sure christians interpret the OT figuratively too, but this is directly from the authority of Jesus in the same bible. It is therefore more reasonable to believe in the christian interpretation, until it has been debunked. The same would go for the other books that mention the stone in a figurative way.

To answer question (2): The fact that your hypothesis is purely empirical is both a good and a bad thing. The good thing is, as previously stated, that it can be scientifically proven to be true, by showing the real stone. The bad thing is that it can only be proven to be true by showing the real stone, because empirical claims necessitate observations. And the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

To be clear, my intention is not to be a downer, but merely to find the reasonable belief.

To see what, to smell what? There is no objectivity here, just a general principle produced by inductive reasoning. The eyes sees things therefore it's purpose is to see. The nose smells things therefore its purpose is to smell. But not everything can be seen, nor can everything be smelled, so these senses are selective and not objective. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand what you are saying here. Most of our principles are arrived at by inductive reasoning. Are you saying it is not right to say the purpose of the eye is to see, and not wrong to say that the purpose of the eye is to smell? Even if you believe only in evolution and not also God as part of the human design, evolution would not retain a body part which served no purpose.

I already explained this, the judgement of a worse or better circle is made relative to some principle or principles. [...] This is a relative good. it is subjective because the principle by which the thing is judged to be good or bad, "circleness", is chosen. [...] — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course good is relative to best. That is pretty much the point in the OP. But relative does not imply subjective. Yes, we pick a type of goodness in the judgement, but once picked, the type of goodness is objective. If we mean 'good' as is 'a good circle', then this type of goodness is objective.

It only appears to be superfluous if you do not recognize the possibility of not-being. If to be is good, then not-being is bad. How is this superfluous? It is, by definition, good to be a thing, and to be nothing is bad. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is getting technical :blush: . If good is always linked to being, and not-good is always linked to not-being, then good=being, and not-good=not-being. But we already have words for these: being and not-being. Thus good is superfluous.

Go ahead then, and explain to me how purpose is objective — Metaphysician Undercover

Take a man-made thing like a paper-cutter. It is by definition "a device whose purpose is to cut paper". Its purpose is inherent in its essence, for a paper-cutter that cannot cut paper is not really a paper-cutter. Since the essence of things is objective, then the purpose inherent in the essence is also objective. That is not to say that everything has a purpose inherent in their essence (although I happen to think that), but this is an example of objective function nonetheless.

"Objective", means of the object, adhering within the object. "Purpose" is to have a function. So if an object has a purpose, this means that it has a function relative to something else. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I agree that objective means a property of the object; however the objet need not be a single substance, and can also be a system of substances. Thus if I say "Person A is taller than person B", 'taller' is relative to A and B, but is objective to the system which is A and B. We know it is objective because objectivity implies a right and wrong; and the statement is either right or wrong, not a matter of opinion.

How does judging good or bad determine a thing's objective purpose? [...] — Metaphysician Undercover

It is the opposite way around. A thing's objective purpose determines the judgement of good or bad. In the case of the tugboat or hammer, the purpose is inherent in the thing's essence. For a tugboat is by definition "a tool whose purpose is to tug boats", and the hammer is by definition "a tool whose purpose is to hit objects into other materials". In those cases, the thing's function is in its identity, which is objective. Thus a hammer that is capable of digging dirt is good at digging dirt, but that does not make it a good hammer. Similarly for persons. If a person is good at driving, we can say "this person is good at driving", but this does not make them "a good person", which has a specific meaning.

Hello.

I first want to point out that this objection seems to be against the inconsistency between Aquinas' argument from degree and his claim that God is not a member of any genus; not against the argument from degree by itself. That said, I can try to refute the objection anyways.

When it comes to moral goodness, us creatures have the potential for it to be fully actualized, thereby becoming maximally good. Still, this maximum degree of goodness would not equal that of God's. The reason is that God has it essentially, where as we have it accidentally, or by participation. I.e., even when fully actualized, we have moral goodness, where as God is Moral Goodness. Thus God does not belong to the genus of "moral goodness by participation" which applies to creatures, for he is Moral Goodness by essence. And the same can be said about other divine attributes like existence, power, wisdom, etc.

A fantastic hypothesis! Allow me to examine it. I have two points.

(1) From a christian standpoint, the primary purpose of the bible is to inform man's life of its meaning, purpose, its goal and how to achieve it; and secondarily to give the good news that there is eternal life after this one. Your hypothesis covers the second point but not the first (at least not in your last post). It is only secondary because the meaning of life is like quality where as the length is like quantity. Following the existentialists, a meaningless life leads to despair. What is the point of having an infinite supply of something if it has no value? Note that this point does not refute your hypothesis, but shows that it is in fact less ambitious than the christian hypothesis.

(2) The good news about your hypothesis is that it is by nature fully empirical, and thus it is scientifically provable. I may not fully comprehend your recipe to produce these stones or how you extracted it from the bible and other books, but all you need to do to demonstrate its truth is to produce some stones and use them on people. If this results in the removal of physical pains and long life, as your hypothesis predicts, then you have proven your case, and the world will be persuaded. Now, what is the status on this experiment?