[AndrewC]

As I said in the rest of the paragraph,

That still doesn't answer which one is material. That is, unless you are redefining reification or admit to misusing reification.

re·i·fy   Pronunciation Key  (r-f, r-)
tr.v. re·i·fied, re·i·fy·ing, re·i·fies

To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.

Equating two abstractions(from your viewpoint) is not reification. From my viewpoint, God is the embodiment and foundation of good. He defines good. But I understand you have to cast about to find good.

[jennyp]

Equating two abstractions(from your viewpoint) is not reification. From my viewpoint, God is the embodiment and foundation of good. He defines good.

Well, do you believe that God (which you called "He") is a person? You are basically a creationist, aren't you? It's difficult to pin you down, I know, but you're basically on the Cre side. So, doesn't God have intentionality? Doesn't God come up with ideas and proceed to carry them out? Is that not "a person"?

Just saying that God is whatever you find to be good, i.e. equating God==The Good, is hardly enough to account for how or why God could've/would've formed the idea to create the universe and carry out this act. Only actual entities - concrete entities - can form thoughts and act on them. How could a purely abstract concept form thoughts & move atoms around?

But I understand you have to cast about to find good.

ZING!