No, I do not think you understand what it is I'm critiquing. Your argument is that the negation of physicalism implies immaterial minds exists which implies it's rational to seek for evidence about God in such things as morality, among others. I am making the point that it is always circular or special pleading to find evidence for God in morality. You have not addressed this and have simply called it uninteresting. Do you not understand what circular reasoning is or do you disagree that it is circular and if you disagree why do you disagree?

You claimed I ignored the following:

In scaling up tiers of metaphysical explanation one eventually arrives at a brute fact, an explanatory terminus, for which there will be no further explanation. And critically, all of these termini are ad hoc and tautological.

But I have not ignored that and I addressed what it is about the tautologies you're using that I'm critiquing when I said

My point was that you could not use the tautology that good is god and god is good to then say there is evidence for God because there are good things, since that is begging the question

Do you not see how it is circular reasoning to define God as being good and then point out that there are good things and therefore there must be a God?

My point was that you must be very careful not to slip into using circular reasoning, which you are doing.

But I feel that you have overlooked the main thrust of my reply

If you believe I have mistaken whatever your main point is then please explicitly tell me what your main point is and I will address it.

And you never have addressed the special pleading about explanations regarding God's mind.