William of Auvergne 1. Everything that is good has goodness in one of two ways: ª)Substantially (goodness is identical with its own essence), or Ɓ)By participation (goodness is added on, like an extra property received from something else). 2. If everything had goodness only by participation, then the intellect could not grasp goodness at all (infinite regress: each thing would borrow its goodness from another, with no ultimate source → goodness itself becomes unintelligible). 3. But the intellect can grasp goodness (we clearly understand and reason about what it means for something to be good). Therefore: Goodness must be predicated substantially of at least one thing (i.e., there exists something whose very essence is goodness itself). Goodness is the quality that makes something worth wanting, approving, or pursuing. It’s the “good” you instantly recognize when you say: “She’s a good person” (kind, honest, trustworthy) “That was a good decision” (wise, helpful, right) “This tool works really well” (does its job perfectly) In short: goodness = whatever makes a thing better rather than worse, more excellent rather than defective, more desirable rather than something you’d reject.

Leibniz Eternal Truths Arguments: "God did not make these things [the ideas of nine, the square and all things] by willing them, but by understanding them, and he understood them by existing" ​"God and God thinking are not exactly the same thing, even if to posit one is to posit the other. Things are in God 'eminently' (eminenter), in God thinking 'representatively' (repraesentative), with their limits. And they can only be in the latter because they are in the former. Realization by this understanding appears in the passage from the eminent to the representative. A thing is not God, or is no longer exactly God, but his thought. This difference is crucial."

Argument from Contingency Premise 1: If each of the parts of any whole has contingent existence, then the whole itself has contingent existence. Premise 2: Each of the parts of nature or the universe as a whole has contingent existence. Deduction and Premise 3: Therefore, nature or the universe as a whole has contingent existence. Premise 4: Definition: If something exists contingently, it is causally derived from or dependent on something other than itself. Deduction and Premise 5: Therefore, nature or the universe as a whole is causally derived from or dependent on something other than itself. Premise 6: The something on which nature or the universe depends is either the Principle of Plenitude, which requires infinitely many worlds in time and/or space; or it is God. Premise 7: The something on which nature or the universe depends is not the Principle of Plenitude or infinitely many worlds. Final Conclusion: The something on which nature or the universe depends is God. Rem B. Edwards (Ph.D., Emory University, 1962) is Lindsay Young Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus at The University of Tennessee, Knoxvill.

Phainetai (φαίνεται) "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life" In his technical analysis, Schmidt clarifies that the specific word used is: "the greek word phomi [sic] can mean appear which is what josephus uses he appeared to them alive it can also mean seem like he seemed to them to be alive or he appeared to them to be alive" youtube.com/watch?v=Pn1P0krl…

Augustine “All things that exist, therefore, are good; and the evil, whose origin I was seeking, is not a substance, because, if it were a substance, it would be good. For either it would be an incorruptible substance, and then it would be a great good; or it would be a corruptible substance, which, unless it were good, could not be corrupted.” “Measure, form, and order are themselves good. Therefore, where these three are great, the goods are great; where they are small, the goods are small; where they are absent, there is no good at all.”