RE: Another argument for God.
January 20, 2018 at 9:56 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2018 at 9:57 pm by GrandizerII.)
(January 20, 2018 at 6:47 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(January 20, 2018 at 6:37 pm)polymath257 Wrote: On the contrary, we can know about some aspects of morality without knowing where it comes from. Whether or not it is 'chaotic', it is still an aspect of human existence.
As an analogy, we don't have to know exactly how sight works in order to see. In fact, people had faulty ideas about light and sight for thousands of years, but still were able to get reliable information from vision. Knowing how the eyes and brain process visual information isn't required to see.
The same thing happens in morality. We can look around and know what leads to better societies and base our morality off of that, even if we do not know the deeper mechanisms.
But the brain *is* complex.
I agree that doesn't make it a good argument for the existence of a deity. But the statement in #1 is correct in and of itself.
NO, that is precisely why #1 fails, because it is NOT an original argument owned by one religion.
They all argue it. The brain being complex being correct STILL does not point to any god of any name.
No, Brian, this is terrible logic. Nothing logically wrong with Premise 1. I don't care about your agenda. When something is logical, it is logical. Of course, his whole argument fails at the end, but that is besides the point.
