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?

Your hypothesis covers the second point but not the first — Samuel Lacrampe

I would argue that while ever mankind is massively constrained through the need to acquire resources (i.e. constant work/slavery) that no-one can reasonably live life as it was intended. Whatever purpose there was originally, whatever beauty in just existing has either been hugely damaged or eradicated by the fact that mankind no longer has access to the Stone. The Bible recounts the allegorical tale of the Garden Of Eden. It is a clear indication of a time when mankind DID have the Stone. if one understands the benefits the Stone bestows this makes sense. The Stone:

1. Provides all the energy the body needs to survive and maintain itself
2. Therefore means you don't need food or drink to exist
3. Protects you from the effects of extreme cold or heat, hence you can walk around naked
4. Keeps you in perfect health, not because it is a medicine but because its energy is the real fuel the body needs and with it the body heals itself and does so rapidly

For me, the accounts of Jesus's activities clearly indicate the he had the Stone. He used it to heal other people, to make the blind see again, to raise the dead, to transform one thing into another and of course to save himself from his own wounds during crucifixion and to get him through that death.
I assume that he also gave it to his close disciples who he sent out into the world to do good with.
They lived in a time when such secrets were guarded because ruthless emperors and kings would have seized the Stone and kept it for themselves and ruled with great power. Problem is in keeping this secret hidden from everyone else, we all suffer as we don't have the Stone and I suspect the number of genuine good people that have it are not enough to secretly use it to heal others.

The good news about your hypothesis is that it is by nature fully empirical, and thus it is scientifically provable — Samuel Lacrampe

Yes I totally agree and to that end there is some interesting evidence. There did exist in 2010 a website forum dedicated to this whole issue. It was a place for actual people who were engaged in the processes of making this Stone to record their findings, discuss their methods, talk about problems encountered along the way and so on. There were numerous photos put up on that site of people's distillation equipment and of the results of their progress.

Note that these people were not following the Bible but rather the many 100s (if not 1000s) of tracts, scripts and treatises of the sages and philosophers of the 1600s to 1900s. I have 100s of those works myself and have read them. They are hugely cryptic, sound like total gibberish to the uninformed but all recount the same processes for creating the Stone.

These works said that if you distil a particular liquid at gentle heat you will get a clear liquid with a particular aroma and set of qualities.

They also said that the detritus left behind from the distillation could be calcinated which would eventually reveal a white salt that had been hidden within it.

The people engaged in these experiments put up numerous photos of this and showed that , yes, there was a hidden white salt.

And so it went on.

None of that proves the Stone's existence but it did prove that the 100s of treatises and works were being truthful about what things would be seen and witnessed during the processes and that for me, lends serious credibility to their content.

The fact that I found that the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita and other sources all referenced the same processes and all hinted at the Stone and the same set of benefits it bestows, just adds more and more credibility to the entire thing.

Somewhat mysteriously that forum was taken down somewhere in 2011/2012. Why I do not know but for me that just added more credibility to the idea that the Stone is a real thing and certain parties didn't want it broadcast over the internet. I guess I should expect men in suits to come knocking on my door any time now !

If the entire idea of the Stone is one huge hoax, then it is by far the Hoax of the Millennia involving as it does 1000s of works spanning 100s of years and a hoax that managed to get itself embedded in the primary tomes underpinning all main world religions. I find that rather incredulous.

As for your question regarding the status of the experiments/processes you'll understand if I don't comment. Anyone discovered to have achieved the Stone would likely be murdered for it for it is a prize more valuable than anything else. If our real world rulers already have it and keep it jealously guarded then they will of course take action if they discover anyone else has achieved it or is engaged in trying to achieve it. I am being deadly serious here. You could put yourself and your family and friends in huge danger. Therefore I make no comment in regards to any practical experimentation.

I simply highlight to people the 100s of works that describe this Stone and the way it is clearly referred to in the Bible and other religious tomes. I do it to make people think, and to wake them up from social/religious conditioning which would otherwise have them take a literal interpretation of the Bible.
My hope is that they will then begin their own journeys into research and acquisition of knowledge.

In conclusion let me say that I am no expert in this field. I do know a lot, I have studied 100s of treatises and documents regarding the Stone, I understand the 2 main parts of the Great Work but I don't believe I have the full knowledge to be able to undertake it. I'm very much open to help and advice from anyone with more knowledge.

ATB

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.

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.

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

I'm saying that inductive reasoning does not determine purpose. For example, every day that we see the sky, it is blue, so we conclude by inductive reasoning that the sky is blue. This does not imply that the purpose of the sky is to be blue. Also, we observe that water flows down hill, but we cannot conclude that the purpose of water is to flow down hill. So when we see that the nose smells, and the eyes see, we cannot conclude that the purpose of the nose is to smell, and the purpose of the eyes is to see. 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.

Yes, we pick a type of goodness in the judgement, but once picked, the type of goodness is objective. — Samuel Lacrampe

How does choosing something change it from subjective to objective? I do not understand your argument. 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.

Since the essence of things is objective, then the purpose inherent in the essence is also objective. — Samuel Lacrampe

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.

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

The "system" here is produced by human minds therefore it is subjective. The judgement of something as right or wrong is carried out by subjects, so such a judgement is necessarily subjective. How do you get to the point of concluding that such a judgement could be 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.

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

a point of clarity - the Catholic view on this is, the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and morals, and its purpose is for our salvation.

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

I too invoke the principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor.

Objectively which is the more likely truth:

1. That the book of Genesis truly recounts the universe being created in 6 days by a God no-one has ever seen, who millions believe to be omnipotent and benevolent and yet seemingly stands by whilst millions suffer every day?

2. That the book of Genesis actually recounts the process for creating a product of Nature through simple laboratory processes which can be tested scientifically ?

on your 2nd issue "is the Stone real?"

I again invoke the principle of Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor.

There are 1000s of documents, works, tracts and treatises written over a huge time period from 1200s to 1900s all of which recount the existence of the Stone and the processes for creating it.

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

Objectively which is the more likely truth:

1. That the myriad of references to the Stone and it's processes for creation are the hoax of all time having been perpetuated for 100s of years by 100s of different people who even managed to get the hoax into the Bible ?

2. That the Stone is in fact real, that the documents do all sing the same song, describe the same processes and the same benefits the Stone provides?

And the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. — Samuel Lacrampe

Let's step back slightly here. The primary claim I am making at this point is not that the Stone is real (tho I do think it is) but rather that the various passages in the Bible DO talk about the Stone and it's associated processes rather than the literal interpretation. The number of references is significant and they are consistent with the 1000s of other documents which specifically explain the Stone.

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

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?

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

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

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 — Samuel Lacrampe

I think you miss the point TBH.

You're taking there about plainly written things, the commandments for example.

It's a very different thing when huge life secrets are HIDDEN deliberately using allegorical terms or cryptic prose or outright coding.

The same secret of the Stone is hidden using the same allegorical terminology in the primary tomes of mainstream religions. That can not be co-incidence.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Stone is being referred to in all these works but it requires that people understand the Stone and the processes for making it before the hidden meaning becomes blatantly clear.

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.

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? — Samuel Lacrampe

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.

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

I don't see this as an acceptable definition of "objective". That a given shape is closer to a square or closer to a circle is a judgement, and therefore subjective. And that this judgement is a right or wrong judgement is a further judgement, and is therefore subjective.

Consider an octagon. It is not a square and it is not a circle. To say that it is either right or wrong that it is closer to being a square than to being a circle is nonsense, because to judge it as closer to one or the other, is also nonsensical. Judgements concern what is and is not, so we can judge it as being close to a square and also as being close to a circle. But each is a different scale of judgement so we would have to refer to a third scale to say whether it's closer to being a circle than it is to being a square. All such judgements are dependent on the scale which is chosen.

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.

"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."

I brought up the Essence = Existence claim because your earlier defense of the Fourth Way appeals to some premise like it. 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.

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.

Read Kant's idea on this. Kant says that being is not a predicate. Something cannot have or lack the quality of existence therefore its existence must be shown and not merely be predicated or implied.

In your terminology, is a judgement that same as a proposition, that is, a sentence that can be either true or false? — Samuel Lacrampe

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..

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

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".

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."

@Samuel

The very fact that hypothesis S can be found hidden allegorically, cryptically and in actual code WITHIN the literal text of hypothesis C lends huge credibility to S and very little to C.

If the sheeps clothing is pulled back to reveal a wolf then there is only pure folly in continuing to believe there is a sheep present. The revelation of the hidden thing within utterly destroys the concept of whatever was concealing it in the first place.

In truth, what you call hypothesis C is simply the misguided interpretation of the outer camoflage. It is the sheep's clothing put there to fool the unwise and uninformed who blindly continue to believe in the sheep (Sheeple ?!). Once the truth is understood, the camoflage disappears in a puff of smoke.

Therefore, in order to refute the whole hypothesis S, you must first refute what S is. You must refute that the texts that describe the Stone and which describe the processes for making it and its benefits . . . . are not in fact talking about the Stone and are not in agreement with 100s if not 1000s of other documents which all recount the same product,processes and benefits.

Again, you don't have to actually believe the Stone exists yourself. You only have to concern yourself with whether or not the hidden text DOES or DOES NOT describe the Stone, it's related processes and its benefits.

I have seen no such refutation from any quarter ever since I discovered all of this knowledge. In fact I deem it inconcievable that any sane and rational mind could, once dutifully and sufficiently informed of the Stone, not then see all the clear references to it in the Bible, hidden there in plain sight, written allegorically, cryptically and in code.

If everything had to be created by God, that creativity would be of a subjectivity; it would remain a mode of intra-subjective being. That subjectivity would not even have the representation of an objectivity, much less be affected with the will to create it. The philosopher's stone is a fundamental part of philosophy through the eyes of the alchemists, but surely you have found that this is psychological!?

That is not a Christian perspective; that God is Love. That is much more ancient an idea.

Anyway... The 'Christian' idea... That is just "platonism for the people".

The being of something must be easily ascertainable to be; not merely predicated. There is absolutely no reason why the idea of perfection should mean that there is an absolute perfection somewhere other than in our imagination. Being is not a predicate. It is not a property that can be lacked. If it lacked existence then it would not be. Because there seems to be 'Goodness' this does not mean that there is an absolute goodness or greatest goodness, which must be God because human beings are imperfect? And because we have an idea of 'perfection', and we are not perfect, there must be some source of this idea of perfection, namely God?! What massive leaps in logic here!

If something is, then it CLEARLY ought to be. I dont find the existence of things to be by using consequences of thoughts themselves a priori. It must be able to be logically shown to have some measurable, qualitative or quantitative degree in the world.

Perfection? Good? Are these things even definable? Something that is described to be whatever way must already be known. If something is known in some way then it must have been ascertained in its wholeness, not some fracturedness of which reveals only slight portions of its essence. If this was the case then we would indeed only be able to say "Whatever Good is... I will absolutely never be able to be sure I know what it is I am even referring to."

To talk of these objective prototypes of human feelings...

Information regarding a moral compass does not come TO us, as if it came from something beyond us. This is due to a lack of further investigation. It comes from what we do not identify our egos to be... Which is indeed still a part of our existence. It is not something separate from us. It is a part of the is that is us.

There is absolutely no reason why the idea of perfection should mean that there is an absolute perfection somewhere other than in our imagination. — Blue Lux

You have the start of the OA there. Just in case for some.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
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.

But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.

God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

God would thus be an all encompassing IDEA, not a being but a concept. You cannot predicate its being!

Define "greater"

i can define something greater than God. That which created God. And that which created that God. Idea ideae.

Furthermore. Everything including a god which may or may not be is greater than that which would or may be god. Man is greater than God. Man inadvertently created God.