Another argument for God.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[GrandizerII]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. The brain is very complex.

ALLAAAAAAAAAH AKBAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, wait, I'm supposed to wait for the rest, huh.....

"I don't understand shit, therefore GOD!"

[Anomalocaris]

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.

Have you noticed your brain is not nearly as complex as you seem to think?

[Mystic]

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.

What I am saying, is we don't know it's not just a fantasy and illusion we act upon.

What if it is mechanism to confirm to norms and values your society comes up with but there is no universal morality that encompasses all of us.

Perhaps it's a chaotic process we use to bring order but paradoxical because we disagree and it makes thing badly of people who think opposite to us, it brings just as much bloodshed and disorder, and it brings just as much hate as it does love.

What I am saying there is no way to know what we are experiencing is something we should actually heed if naturalism is true. We don't know and like you said if it is a human thing what if another species that is sentient like us, they have a ritual where the males compete in some sort of sport, and then are giving ranks and outcomes, and then get to choose females who have to accept whoever chooses them. What if that was their mating process?

I take the male and female and the mercy and tranquility that God has put between us manifesting the truth of being created through truth and his name, and it's of the clear signs of the light and connection to the source.

Even the male and female relationship is not chaotic but has a reality with respect to God's image and descent of his Name, by which he established and created all bonds and will continue to do so through his name.

Another premise which is similar and proves that premise and can be used as substitute, is:

"If we don't know whether morality has a mystic nature or not,  we aren't justified in believing it's not an illusion we act upon".

The fact is love, morality, value, and inner beauty all point to the one.

Another way to look at it and this proves both premises, the one you quotes and the one I just stated is: "goodness in all possible worlds has one definition and reality" and since we know it's possible it originates from God while we don't know it's possible it originates from anything else, it's proven to be from God.

[Brian37]

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.

"Agenda"?  What? That is laughable.


There is NO agenda whatsoever in stating an observation that EVERY religion in the world, has apologists whom all make the same arguments. I never said every member does, but every label has members that do, to some extent, greater or lesser.

I didn't uncover evolution, DARWIN DID. Scientists since went on to uncover DNA which backs that up. Our brains have allowed us to have a more complex language, but when  theists makes that the ARGUMENT, they fail, because what they really want is for that to point to their specific club. Scientific method is a NEUTRAL TOOL, or I should say, should be treated as neutral, and apologists OF EVERY label worldwide hate that it is not bias pointing to their specific club labels.

If you hear a Muslim, Christian or Jew, or Hindu or Buddhist say, "life is complex" or, "A monkey could not write Shakespeare" they are not arguing science, they are arguing theology. Some do accept science sure, but only until it conflicts with the mythology and superstitions they fell for.

[drfuzzy]

Is there actually someone, or an organization, that pays people to troll "unbeliever" websites?  
That's the only sensible reason I can imagine that would cause anyone would waste hundreds of hours of their life trolling and posting ridiculous illogical bullshit.
There's a not-sensible reason: advanced mental illness.  One or the other.  Pay to troll or extreme levels of delusion.

[GrandizerII]

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.

"Agenda"?  What? That is laughable.


There is NO agenda whatsoever in stating an observation that EVERY religion in the world, has apologists whom all make the same arguments. I never said every member does, but every label has members that do, to some extent, greater or lesser.

I didn't uncover evolution, DARWIN DID. Scientists since went on to uncover DNA which backs that up. Our brains have allowed us to have a more complex language, but when  theists makes that the ARGUMENT, they fail, because what they really want is for that to point to their specific club. Scientific method is a NEUTRAL TOOL, or I should say, should be treated as neutral, and apologists OF EVERY label worldwide hate that it is not bias pointing to their specific club labels.

If you hear a Muslim, Christian or Jew, or Hindu or Buddhist say, "life is complex" or, "A monkey could not write Shakespeare" they are not arguing science, they are arguing theology. Some do accept science sure, but only until it conflicts with the mythology and superstitions they fell for.

And here you go again being all over the place with random shit. Its like one cant have a steady and rational discourse with you at all as soon as someone brings up religion.

[Succubus]

Is there actually someone, or an organization, that pays people to troll "unbeliever" websites?  
That's the only sensible reason I can imagine that would cause anyone would waste hundreds of hours of their life trolling and posting ridiculous illogical bullshit.
There's a not-sensible reason: advanced mental illness.  One or the other.  Pay to troll or extreme levels of delusion.

Not even the most fundamentalist of fundies could maintain a farce for this long. Page after page and thread after thread of unreadable trash. LSD or poe?

[drfuzzy]

Is there actually someone, or an organization, that pays people to troll "unbeliever" websites?  
That's the only sensible reason I can imagine that would cause anyone would waste hundreds of hours of their life trolling and posting ridiculous illogical bullshit.
There's a not-sensible reason: advanced mental illness.  One or the other.  Pay to troll or extreme levels of delusion.

Not even the most fundamentalist of fundies could maintain a farce for this long. Page after page and thread after thread of unreadable trash. LSD or poe?

If he's doing this all on his own, he's at the very least delusional and obsessed and has absolutely no life.  He SEEMS to be hanging his whole "mission" and self-respect on converting poor atheists to his fantasies.  We could wonder about drugs but - while his logic is non-existent, his spelling is pretty good.  I truly wonder if there are some loonies out there paying people to "evangelize".  Isn't he a student in an Islamic seminary?  Prime target.