Another argument for God.

[chimp3]

Amazing to me the bullshit primates conjure up because they are bored. I think being a primate is fascinating! MK! Get in touch with your apey apeness!

[Mystic]

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.

Sorry, your argument fails starting at #3. it gets much worse after that.

What is the problem with 3? If we have no idea how the brain can generate morals and make goodness binding on us, we don't know it's not an illusion.

What if it's a chaotic process that is just makes us feel good and cooperate but has no reality? And that we all dispute about it because of that?

Let's see a real problem with this premise. Remember people didn't understand chemistry all that like today, so none of that could justify it in the past.

---

"5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.
6. Goodness is not an illusion."

No, morals and the idea of "goodness" is defined by culture, one culture may think it's good to deny women a vote or ban them from driving, another may think it's good to keep black people as slaves

What people actually CLAIM to believe and think is one thing, what they actually know and believe is another.  

Yes if we take everyone on their claims to knowledge, then there is no such thing as knowledge. And if we take everyone claim at what they deem morality then there is no morality.

---

Amazing to me the bullshit primates conjure up because they are bored. I think being a primate is fascinating! MK! Get in touch with your apey apeness!

Thanks for showing a sufficient reason why God would not creates us from primates.

[Brian37]

Sorry, your argument fails starting at #3. it gets much worse after that.

What is the problem with 3? If we have no idea how the brain can generate morals and make goodness binding on us, we don't know it's not an illusion.

What if it's a chaotic process that is just makes us feel good and cooperate but has no reality? And that we all dispute about it because of that?

Let's see a real problem with this premise. Remember people didn't understand chemistry all that like today, so none of that could justify it in the past.

No Poly, MK's argument failed from #1. 


Argument from complexity is NOT an argument. It isn't when Christians or Jews try to argue complexity either. Dont feed MK, he is in the same boat as Roadrunner or Catholic Lady.

[zebo-the-fat]

Sorry, your argument fails starting at #3. it gets much worse after that.

What is the problem with 3? If we have no idea how the brain can generate morals and make goodness binding on us, we don't know it's not an illusion.

What if it's a chaotic process that is just makes us feel good and cooperate but has no reality? And that we all dispute about it because of that?

Let's see a real problem with this premise. Remember people didn't understand chemistry all that like today, so none of that could justify it in the past.

---

"5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.
6. Goodness is not an illusion."

No, morals and the idea of "goodness" is defined by culture, one culture may think it's good to deny women a vote or ban them from driving, another may think it's good to keep black people as slaves

What people actually CLAIM to believe and think is one thing, what they actually know and believe is another.  

Yes if we take everyone on their claims to knowledge, then there is no such thing as knowledge. And if we take everyone claim at what they deem morality then there is no morality.

---

Amazing to me the bullshit primates conjure up because they are bored. I think being a primate is fascinating! MK! Get in touch with your apey apeness!

Thanks for showing a sufficient reason why God would not creates us from primates.

Please learn some biology, we were not made from primates, we ARE primates

[Aoi Magi]

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.

1. Yes the brain is complex, but so is a rock or a flower....

2. Yes humans are dumb and don't understand a lot of things, like let's say plants are all around us, yet we still have very little understanding of a plants sensory processes. However, just cause we don't know the finest details doesn't mean humans lack a general understanding of the subject. Humans have been poking and prodding at the brain and have known it's importance for a very long time now.

3. The brain is the source of thought. Morality and goodness are social constructs. A cat has a brain, yet it steals food and doesn't find it immoral. Similarly a human baby will pick up any random shiny thing without any concern regarding the ownership of the item. The concept that stealing or taking other's things without permission is wrong, is taught to them by society as they grow up.

4. Why? We are justified in believing in morality because without it our society would fall apart, and this directly effects our own chances of survival.

5. Again, why wouldn't we be justified? and goodness an indeed be an illusion depending on how you define it, but that doesn't invalidate it's existence.

I can't get to your other points as they rely on these premises which I find faulty.

[polymath257]

Sorry, your argument fails starting at #3. it gets much worse after that.

What is the problem with 3? If we have no idea how the brain can generate morals and make goodness binding on us, we don't know it's not an illusion.

What if it's a chaotic process that is just makes us feel good and cooperate but has no reality? And that we all dispute about it because of that?

Let's see a real problem with this premise. Remember people didn't understand chemistry all that like today, so none of that could justify it in the past.

---

"5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.
6. Goodness is not an illusion."

No, morals and the idea of "goodness" is defined by culture, one culture may think it's good to deny women a vote or ban them from driving, another may think it's good to keep black people as slaves

What people actually CLAIM to believe and think is one thing, what they actually know and believe is another.  

Yes if we take everyone on their claims to knowledge, then there is no such thing as knowledge. And if we take everyone claim at what they deem morality then there is no morality.

---

Amazing to me the bullshit primates conjure up because they are bored. I think being a primate is fascinating! MK! Get in touch with your apey apeness!

Thanks for showing a sufficient reason why God would not creates us from primates.

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.

---

What is the problem with 3? If we have no idea how the brain can generate morals and make goodness binding on us, we don't know it's not an illusion.

What if it's a chaotic process that is just makes us feel good and cooperate but has no reality? And that we all dispute about it because of that?

Let's see a real problem with this premise. Remember people didn't understand chemistry all that like today, so none of that could justify it in the past.

No Poly, MK's argument failed from #1. 


Argument from complexity is NOT an argument. It isn't when Christians or Jews try to argue complexity either. Dont feed MK, he is in the same boat as Roadrunner or Catholic Lady.

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.

[Brian37]

What is the problem with 3? If we have no idea how the brain can generate morals and make goodness binding on us, we don't know it's not an illusion.

What if it's a chaotic process that is just makes us feel good and cooperate but has no reality? And that we all dispute about it because of that?

Let's see a real problem with this premise. Remember people didn't understand chemistry all that like today, so none of that could justify it in the past.

---

What people actually CLAIM to believe and think is one thing, what they actually know and believe is another.  

Yes if we take everyone on their claims to knowledge, then there is no such thing as knowledge. And if we take everyone claim at what they deem morality then there is no morality.

---

Thanks for showing a sufficient reason why God would not creates us from primates.

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.

---

No Poly, MK's argument failed from #1. 


Argument from complexity is NOT an argument. It isn't when Christians or Jews try to argue complexity either. Dont feed MK, he is in the same boat as Roadrunner or Catholic Lady.

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.

[chimp3]

---

Amazing to me the bullshit primates conjure up because they are bored. I think being a primate is fascinating! MK! Get in touch with your apey apeness!

Thanks for showing a sufficient reason why God would not creates us from primates.

I guess the very fact that we are apes disproves your sky fairy god then?

A god would not create us from primates.

We are relatives of the chimpanzee.

Therefore, no god created us!

[brewer]

Feelings of personal persecution, and his attempts to resolve it, may be part of MK's clinical picture.

[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