Another argument for God.

[Cinjin]

My dear MysticKnight. You do realize that most of us here are men and women of reason and logic.
I'll keep this very very simple in order so that you grasp why presentation of this sort of "evidence" is a waste of your time.

1. The brain is very complex.

This is the only bullet point that could arguably be considered correct. I will concede that this is common knowledge at this point in history and that sources are not required.

2. Humans throughout history have not understood the brain.

A rather general statement that can be shown to be incorrect. Although we may not understand 100% of the human mind, we do currently understand the brain's functions and even what parts of the brain control what parts of the body and what effects medicine, surgery and psycho therapy have on it. There is actually much we understand about 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.

This is your own assertion. It supports only your agenda. Who are you to say that humans can't understand that morality does or does not come from the mind?
Everything that comes out of our heads and hearts would logically come from the mind. ie. No brain - no thoughts. 

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.

Why not? Again, this is merely your own unsubstantiated assertion. You don't KNOW where your god lives yet you feel justified in belief. Yet here you are telling others what they can or cannot feel justified in believing.

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

This statement makes no sense and builds it's conclusion off of a fallacy made in point #4.

6. Goodness is not an illusion.
- Therefore naturalism is not true.

Again, your own personal assertion. Where are your sources and your research to back up your claims?
Even your own god said "your righteousness is as filthy rags" ... sounds like an illusion to me.

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.

Here we go again. A statement that reaches a conclusion by use of a fallacy made earlier in the bullet points.

8. If we are justified we must all know we are justified.

This is where your points digress into the absurd (if not sooner). This is the bullet point of a preacher on a soapbox. There is literally nothing of evidence or reason in this statement.

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.

Points 9 and 10 are both conclusions drawn to by your own biased self-aggrandized assertions. They mean nothing.
They both use the fallacies you yourself decided were truths with no regard for evidence or research. How can you possibly expect this sort of thread to have an effect on any one with half an intelligence?


Have a pleasant evening.
Cinjin

[Cecelia]

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. God is complex
2. Humans throughout history have not understood God
3. If God is the source of goodness and morality, then most humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the nature of God
4. If we don't know it's possible that the source of morality and goodness is god, and that god does actually exist, then we aren't really justified in belief in morals and morality

Do you see where I'm going with this?

[MohammadAli1993]

You keep giving these lists, and it never gets far before I have some kind of problem with it.

Yes you have a problem with a premise, but the problem you have is from you.  Nice of you to at least acknowledge that much.

The next question, are you justified in disagreeing with any of the premises? That is another question.

Salam Brother MysticKnight. I'm from SC. Have you accepted my friend request yet. Hope you are well my brother

[vulcanlogician]

On premise 3, "If the brain is the source of morality and goodness,"-- I don't think anyone claims that the brain is the source of morality and goodness. This statement is vague. One may use a calculator to figure out how much money one has, but (unless one is an accountant by profession) a calculator is not the source of all one's money.

I think you are pointing out that we use reason to figure out right from wrong. I agree with you here, and I see where you're coming from. Reasoning is, indeed, made possible because we have brains. But this doesn't mean that everything based on reason thereby has the "brain as its source". Pythagoras --and/or his follower(s)-- discovered the Pythagorean theorem. Now, he/they obviously needed their brains to discover the theorem. But the theorem is not made less valid because we don't completely understand neurobiology. You can do one of those proof thingies and figure out that it works.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think, meaningfully, that moral subjectivists claim that.  Though I would suggest that they are not quite getting it right for the same reasons you mentioned above.  I find that alot of objections and or arguments that do circles around morality, in context of arguing for a god..are really just responses to some sort of meaningful moral subjectivism.  It's unkind...but...commonly...and Mystics argument is a posterchild for this.....

-If morality came from the brain it would be subjective/meaningless/an illusion.
That would be bad.
It's not like that.
Therefore god.

-The irony being that if their need for morality to be specifically meaningful or objective or real is what informs them to either believe in or argue for gods.....it's pretty much the only way to reduce a subject like morality to silliness. Ghosts, therefore right and wrong.

[Mystic]

Yes you have a problem with a premise, but the problem you have is from you.  Nice of you to at least acknowledge that much.

The next question, are you justified in disagreeing with any of the premises? That is another question.

Salam Brother MysticKnight. I'm from SC. Have you accepted my friend request yet. Hope you are well my brother

Salam brother.

Why don't you post here. And if you like you enough, I will friend you.

---

On premise 3, "If the brain is the source of morality and goodness,"-- I don't think anyone claims that the brain is the source of morality and goodness. This statement is vague. One may use a calculator to figure out how much money one has, but (unless one is an accountant by profession) a calculator is not the source of all one's money.

I think you are pointing out that we use reason to figure out right from wrong. I agree with you here, and I see where you're coming from. Reasoning is, indeed, made possible because we have brains. But this doesn't mean that everything based on reason thereby has the "brain as its source". Pythagoras --and/or his follower(s)-- discovered the Pythagorean theorem. Now, he/they obviously needed their brains to discover the theorem. But the theorem is not made less valid because we don't completely understand neurobiology. You can do one of those proof thingies and figure out that it works.

Morality is based on properly basic axioms, like "to value others is good" "loving others is good", those cannot be reasoned but form the properly basics of how we should go about other actions using reason. If you try to reason them, and make them, well because it suits our needs, and suits my needs, you are reducing morality to utility for yourself, which makes it entirely selfish.

Of course, love has to be guided, which needs reason and guidance, to be good, but reason itself needs a reason to justify goodness, and what is goodness but love of all that is good and to be valued, and what is that but God and his light in creation?

---

2. Humans throughout history have not understood the brain.

A rather general statement that can be shown to be incorrect. Although we may not understand 100% of the human mind, we do currently understand the brain's functions and even what parts of the brain control what parts of the body and what effects medicine, surgery and psycho therapy have on it. There is actually much we understand about the brain.

Even I concede which I do not, that some humans understand how the brain works to the extent they can justify goodness from that, most humans through history and today, do not know enough about the brain to justify it can be the source of morality.

---

1. God is complex
2. Humans throughout history have not understood God
3. If God is the source of goodness and morality, then most humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the nature of God
4. If we don't know it's possible that the source of morality and goodness is god, and that god does actually exist, then we aren't really justified in belief in morals and morality

Do you see where I'm going with this?

What you said is all true, and so without a mystic link and connection to the source of morality, we cannot justify morality. God is absolutely beyond our knowledge and without a connection and path to him, we can grasp anything of his knowledge.

I argue further more is that morality itself is complex more then the brain,  how we are accounted to by our intentions, and how we inherit our states, this is greater then our human form, it's a reality connection to the seven high realms of the sky and the seven lands which God's plants grow, and in all that, is the true nature of who we are, beyond our physical human form, and in that regard there is no difference between a Jinn and human, we are the same in that regard, but our tried differently, the former given incredible powers and need to be humble, and the latter given a vulnerable weak nature that has to be strengthened through will and relying on the guidance of God.

And every stage of growth is more complex then it's former state, in all that, we need a guide to show us how to act in whatever stage we reach.

[LadyForCamus]

Salam Brother MysticKnight. I'm from SC. Have you accepted my friend request yet. Hope you are well my brother

Salam brother.

Why don't you post here. And if you like you enough, I will friend you.

---

On premise 3, "If the brain is the source of morality and goodness,"-- I don't think anyone claims that the brain is the source of morality and goodness. This statement is vague. One may use a calculator to figure out how much money one has, but (unless one is an accountant by profession) a calculator is not the source of all one's money.

I think you are pointing out that we use reason to figure out right from wrong. I agree with you here, and I see where you're coming from. Reasoning is, indeed, made possible because we have brains. But this doesn't mean that everything based on reason thereby has the "brain as its source". Pythagoras --and/or his follower(s)-- discovered the Pythagorean theorem. Now, he/they obviously needed their brains to discover the theorem. But the theorem is not made less valid because we don't completely understand neurobiology. You can do one of those proof thingies and figure out that it works.

Morality is based on properly basic axioms, like "to value others is good" "loving others is good", those cannot be reasoned but form the properly basics of how we should go about other actions using reason. If you try to reason them, and make them, well because it suits our needs, and suits my needs, you are reducing morality to utility for yourself, which makes it entirely selfish.

Of course, love has to be guided, which needs reason and guidance, to be good, but reason itself needs a reason to justify goodness, and what is goodness but love of all that is good and to be valued, and what is that but God and his light in creation?

---

A rather general statement that can be shown to be incorrect. Although we may not understand 100% of the human mind, we do currently understand the brain's functions and even what parts of the brain control what parts of the body and what effects medicine, surgery and psycho therapy have on it. There is actually much we understand about the brain.

Even I concede which I do not, that some humans understand how the brain works to the extent they can justify goodness from that, most humans through history and today, do not know enough about the brain to justify it can be the source of morality.

---

1. God is complex
2. Humans throughout history have not understood God
3. If God is the source of goodness and morality, then most humans throughout history have not understood how that is even possible given they have not understood the nature of God
4. If we don't know it's possible that the source of morality and goodness is god, and that god does actually exist, then we aren't really justified in belief in morals and morality

Do you see where I'm going with this?

What you said is all true, and so without a mystic link and connection to the source of morality, we cannot justify morality. God is absolutely beyond our knowledge and without a connection and path to him, we can grasp anything of his knowledge.

I argue further more is that morality itself is complex more then the brain,  how we are accounted to by our intentions, and how we inherit our states, this is greater then our human form, it's a reality connection to the seven high realms of the sky and the seven lands which God's plants grow, and in all that, is the true nature of who we are, beyond our physical human form, and in that regard there is no difference between a Jinn and human, we are the same in that regard, but our tried differently, the former given incredible powers and need to be humble, and the latter given a vulnerable weak nature that has to be strengthened through will and relying on the guidance of God.

And every stage of growth is more complex then it's former state, in all that, we need a guide to show us how to act in whatever stage we reach.

Morality is not nearly as mystifying as you’d prefer it to be, MK. 

http://www.thetherapyspace.com/blog/2016...compassion

I know two minutes of internet research badly hurts your case, but you should try it some time.  You might actually learn something.

[Mystic]

Morality is as mystifying as it gets. Love is as spiritual as it gets.

[LadyForCamus]

So...you didn’t read the article then?

[The Grand Nudger]

Morality is based on properly basic axioms, like "to value others is good" "loving others is good", those cannot be reasoned but form the properly basics of how we should go about other actions using reason.

Those two sound like moral conclusions..not moral axioms.  You can;t reason your way to either of them?   

If you try to reason them, and make them, well because it suits our needs, and suits my needs, you are reducing morality to utility for yourself, which makes it entirely selfish.

Morality may be a selfish endeavor.  It's, at least, entirely self referential....but so what?  So what if it is?  

Morality is as mystifying as it gets.

The only kind of morality that would be mystifying would be an inexplicable or incommunicable morality.  I think that your being mystified by morality has more to do with your ignorance and inability than in anything about morality, or the brain, itself.