Another argument for God.

[GrandizerII]

See why the connection of consecutive posts into one post bugs me! I gave a kudos to MK for his response to that new Shia dude, but it ended up being a kudos for all his other posts after that.

[LadyForCamus]

See why the connection of consecutive posts into one post bugs me! I gave a kudos to MK for his response to that new Shia dude, but it ended up being a kudos for all his other posts after that.

Lol, I was wondering!  😛

[vulcanlogician]

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.

I disagree that values cannot be reasoned... but let's just ignore that for now. I'm confused about how "understanding the brain/ the brain is the source" is a problem when judging moral discernments.

How does it matter to your argument that these axioms/values come from  the brain? It is either true that "to value others is good" or it is not true. Something is either a good idea or it's not a good idea. It says nothing about the idea itself to describe its source. Suppose the brain is a horrible source for moral ideas. Who cares? On the whole, I find horoscopes to be a terrible source for advice, but if a horoscope said, "If you see that it's raining outside bring along an umbrella," I wouldn't think its a BAD idea  just because my horoscope recommended it. Likewise, even if a brain is a terrible source for moral information, you cannot say that all brain-originated moral assessments are false. It doesn't follow.

[Mystic]

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.

I disagree that values cannot be reasoned... but let's just ignore that for now. I'm confused about how "understanding the brain/ the brain is the source" is a problem when judging moral discernments.

How does it matter to your argument that these axioms/values come from  the brain? It is either true that "to value others is good" or it is not true. Something is either a good idea or it's not a good idea. It says nothing about the idea itself to describe its source. Suppose the brain is a horrible source for moral ideas. Who cares? On the whole, I find horoscopes to be a terrible source for advice, but if a horoscope said, "If you see that it's raining outside bring along an umbrella," I wouldn't think its a BAD idea  just because my horoscope recommended it. Likewise, even if a brain is a terrible source for moral information, you cannot say that all brain-originated moral assessments are false. It doesn't follow.

If a brain is a terrible source of moral assessment, and if goodness is to act on guided love, and that requires evidence and proofs and sight to actions for it be guided love acting on objective perception, then something else has to guide us for goodness to be possible.

And if goodness is acting on chaotic or unguided love, then there is no good and evil, because most evil is acted on chaotic and unguided and unbalanced love.

And if we are allowed to do both, good and evil, and mix it all, there is no good or evil.

[vulcanlogician]

If a brain is a terrible source of moral assessment...

Stop right there, I'm not saying it is. I think it isn't. But even IF IT IS, you ought to evaluate each assessment based on the merits of the assessment itself. Not the source. That's my point.

[Mystic]

If a brain is a terrible source of moral assessment...

Stop right there, I'm not say it is. I think it isn't. But even IF IT IS, you ought to evaluate each assessment based on the merits of the assessment itself. Not the source. That's my point.

How will you evaluate it when the means to evaluate it is unreliable?

---

I have to go. School. Be back tomorrow.

[vulcanlogician]

The same way you test theorems. You look for proof. That's why I used them as an example. But let me ask you something: isn't the Pythagorean theorem accurate and true? What was it's source? Can you show it to be false? Should we ever disregard it simply because it "came from a brain?"

[MohammadAli1993]

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.

Have you read my private message yet? We have similar journeys Mystic Knight. Just wanted you to share your experiences with me. But all in a good time. You don't visit Shiachat anymore. How come bro?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

What's your motivation for making these arguments when you believe that we all believe God is real and that your arguments are super-convincing and are just lying about it? Since you believe we are lying in both instances, what do you expect to get out of our responses?

[Mystic]

It is like a beating dead horse, only that, I believe God can revive the dead lands after they dried up, and so perhaps, someone will listen and give ear to reason and light.