Descartes’ anthropological proof

What do you think about values and morality, which reason knows to exist and to be binding? Can we say that they are a ‘concept that is completely new and different from anything we know’ and that they were necessarily given to us by an external source? (– A Descartes-style proof just to replace God with morality)
I mean apart from the fact that reason ‘observes’ the idea of morality (intuition in the sense of’)

Or do we only believe intuition in things that cannot be logically deduced but are a concept that is completely new and strange?

I agree with this formulation. Values are a concept that is fundamentally different from facts, and our experience yields only facts. Therefore, anyone who accepts the validity of values essentially assumes that there is something external that observation yields them. God is the source that created this external something. See the fourth notebook.

You wrote “Therefore, whoever accepts the validity of values is essentially assuming…”, meaning that it is only a declarative argument and not a deductive argument.
But perhaps Descartes' argument can also be used to formulate a conclusive argument to prove the existence of the idea of values, as follows:
Assumption A: The mind recognizes the existence of the concepts of values and morality
Assumption B: The mind cannot create a completely new concept out of nothing, but only recognizes the concepts it receives from the senses or expands these concepts, or recognizes the concept indirectly (‘the eyes of the mind’) in parallel with the five senses
Assumption C: The five senses cannot recognize the concepts of values and morality
Conclusion: There is a direct channel between the mind and the idea of values and morality, so that it recognizes it indirectly (the sixth sense – ‘the eyes of the mind’)

Correction: But perhaps based on the structure of Descartes' argument, etc.

Too many incorrect things have been written here.
The mind does not recognize morality or values. Man does. And he recognizes it in a negative sense. Man is afraid of the feelings of guilt he will have if he goes against his conscience.
This is about psychology. And nothing more.

PS.
The Torah commands that you should not follow your heart and your eyes. After your heart = “moral intuition”. After your eyes = ”moral reason”

The Posk,
A person who is willing to sacrifice his life for his principles. Do you have any respect for him? And if so, why?

(You wrote “Too many incorrect things have been written here”, but so far I have only found one thing that you think is incorrect)

One, what does this have to do with God? The discussion was about proof of His existence.

Descartes' discussion was about proving the existence of God. But I'm not talking about that. I'm just trying to prove the existence of the idea of values and morality. (I take from Descartes only the structure of the argument: eliminating the possibility that the concept was created by the mind but does not exist outside of it. There is still a bit of a difference, because Descartes does not assume that there is a view of divine perfection by the mind, but that the concept of perfection is given to us by God)
Regarding the idea of values and morality - is my argument correct?

(Of course, if we prove this idea, it will also prove the existence of God as the source of morality, since in the teachings of our Lord and Savior, we learned that there is no morality without God)

I wrote that I agree with that. But the thread starter talked about proof of the existence of God.

You wrote that you agree with this as a *revealing* argument, and yet I suggested that it could also be a *conclusive* argument, and I would like to hear your opinion on this

(I am the one who started the thread)

I think your argument is also revealing. You can argue that there is no correlation, and then you won't have to assume the existence of a correlation mechanism.

How can you claim that there is no match? After all, my mind recognizes a concept that it cannot invent on its own!

“A person who is willing to sacrifice his life for his principles. Do you have any respect for him? And if so, why?”
Depends. It can end in either respect or contempt. Usually contempt.

You have to be a complete idiot to think that God planted the concept of perfection in us. People learned this concept from their acquaintance with complete idiots.

The mind does not invent concepts. Maybe mathematical concepts. Concepts are created in the soul.

Conscience is a structure in the soul. Quite cruel. If you do not follow it, it punishes you with feelings of guilt.

One, indeed. Agree.

It is not natural that we have understood Descartes' argument correctly.
The anthropological proof goes like this:
1. An idea with a certain content is caused by something with the same or higher reality than what is represented in the idea because something more perfect does not result from something less perfect
2. We have an idea of an infinite being - one that includes all ideas - there is reality for an infinite content
3. Only an infinite thing can be the cause of an infinite idea

Conclusion There is a God

Can evolution be a rejection of anthropological evidence? After all, it is possible that the concept of perfection was imprinted in us with the help of evolution due to some survival need. (After all, mutations can affect our way of thinking, and perhaps also our world of concepts).

I wrote above that the evidence doesn't exist, so why are there any delays?