The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality)

Hello, I would like to start off by telling you that you're interpretation of my argument is correct: No better, no worse, mere existence. You obviously do not understand determinism at all, I can see. Everything is cause and effect. This is a fact: there are chemical processes in you're brain that control what you decide; you have instincts; You're brain is a physical object and so works under the same pre-tenses, and therefore cannot be random, and there is a fated r4eason for every event. You play a cheap card by claiming that anyone from "personal experience" can prove your4e argument, while this is vastly misleading. A human brain may not observe itself, and fully understand the workings of it; any psychologist could tell you that. "Without dark, there could be no light, without heat, there could be no cold" Opposition? No. Those things are not opposites. This does not prove you're argument. The things above are not opposites: Dark is the lack of light; cold is the lack of heat. Not, the opposite, they are not "opposing forces", at all. But anyways, "How would you define something without it's opposite?" You can't define either good or bad with a real definition. "Opposition in all things is a fundamental part of human growth and progression." Once more, you are limiting yourself to Humans. Opposition only exists in a world where there are entities with goals. What goal? Once more, there is no fundamental cause to things. The "goals" perceived in human minds are simply the brains urge to do some thing or other. Let us please look at the fundamental existence of all things, and not how the world looks through human minds, and the interactions of Humans. "One of the "opposites" in our universe that everyone has without a doubt experienced are the opposites of pleasure and pain" Once more, these are only chemical processes of the brain, this has NOTHING to do with the existence of things, this is only some animal's instincts and sensations when a pain nerve is stimulated. "Now please bear with me on this one, if you were to take 10 animals, (dogs, cats, or humans) and show them one room where upon entry they are beaten with a hammer, and another room down the hall, where they are treated kindly and given some sort of treat, there would be a perception of "different". If then you were to let the animals loose, you would probably find that they unanimously will "choose" the option that they would prefer, or in other words, the room that they would avoid would be the room that they perceived to be "bad"." Once more, you limit yourself to animal brains. You are only reinforcing that it is an ILLUSION, by only giving proof that has to do with how an animal brain perceives something, and not of the true nature of the things existence. Sure the animals would have that ILLUSION the room is bad, but the room is really just a room, with certain atoms in certain ways that make certain elements, which form particles, which form larger objects, and it is all just existing. "This is because you likely do not want to be hit in the face with a crow bar, (just for the record, I like you and would never hit you with a crow bar). Taking a crow bar to the face would not feel good. Getting a broken leg is bad, watching a parent die in a horrible accident is undesirable, and therefore bad." Why is that bad? You, in this ENTIRE debate have only focused on how things are perceived by a brain, and therefore helping my argument that good and bad are illusions. If you hit me in the head with a crowbar, some particles would act in different ways and exist in new areas, is that "bad"? I think my oppoonent has proved that good and bad are illusions, as we can see from his examples that animals are of the belief that things are good and bad. -Harlan