Another argument for God.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1. The brain is very complex.
2. Humans throughout history have not understood the brain.
3. If the brain is the source of morality and goodness,  then most of humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the brain.
4. If we don't know it's possible the source of morality and goodness is the brain and naturalism is true (no spirits, no mystic reality, etc), then we aren't justified in belief in morals and morality.
5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.
6. Goodness is not an illusion.
- Therefore naturalism is not true.
7. If naturalism is not true, then it is possible to justify belief in morality and goodness.
-thus We are justified in belief in morals and goodness.
8. If we are justified we must all know we are justified.
9. Without knowing the source of morality even in case of naturalism being false, we aren't justified.
-thus Therefore we know the source of morality.
10. The source of morality giving how important morality is by definition the most sacred and important thing to be valued.
thus-God exists.

1.  It isn't possible to rationally disagree with this point.  Well done.

2.  Until fairly recently, this is true.  We now understand a great deal about the brain.

3.  Correct again.  For example, the ancient Chinese thought the liver was the seat of emotion.

4.  But we do know that this is possible.  Even though we aren't 100% certain that the human brain/mind is the source of morality and goodness, it is reasonable to expect that it is the case, since morality is an exclusively human concern and no other organism possesses a human brain.  Tomato plants, zebras, sea sponges and oysters (for example) are conspicuously lacking in displays of moral behaviour.

No point addressing the rest, except to say that you seem unclear as to what is meant by the term 'argument'

Boru