The school is based on the principle that goodness and knowledge go together.
Perhaps we feel like that when we die and become a part of something entire, whether it is sun and air, or goodness and knowledge.
Just as the number two is necessarily even, God is necessarily supreme in power, goodness, and knowledge.
However, neither the preferable, nor the less preferable were considered "good" or "evil"; they were considered morally indifferent, "Goodness, however, and knowledge, although they had value of a unique kind, could not be the only things to have value.
Suppose that we were to have in hand satisfactory accounts of natural goodness and our knowledge of it, along with a rationally defensible account of the basic goods that are the fundamental reasons for action.
But elsewhere, following his kinsman Matthew Arnold, he defends timeless standards of "goodness, beauty, wisdom and knowledge", which he takes to be "everywhere and in all kinds of society broadly the same".Finally Huxley identifies himself as a "life-worshipper", though this is too Nietzschean a label for what amounts to a rather tepid Epicureanism.
Such a person is like a tree:he will give his divine knowledge, his goodness, and his good qualities to others in order to make them peaceful.
Perhaps all of God's real but contingent properties are expressions of his perfect knowledge, goodness, and creative power.
Rather, the very disproportion that makes us fallible and makes human evil possible is also what makes goodness, knowledge, and achievement possible.
Alternatively, one might eschew an appeal to God's knowledge or goodness and claim that there is no independent standard for God's will and nature.
Whence could we get the idea of perfect goodness or infinite forgiveness except from our knowledge of human goodness and human forgiveness?
