The Jolly Nihilist (Part 4)

You say nobody has proved that such things as rationality need a rational source. I say common sense tell us we do. But my point is you assumed you are right and I am wrong. Maybe both come down to a Faith.

You are refusing to accept the burden of proof on a positive claim that you have posited. You are making the positive claim that rationality absolutely requires some kind of rational supernatural foundation. I do not accept this positive claim, because you have done nothing to prove it. Moreover, with the brick and house example, I have shown that new properties can emerge when mere matter is put in a new configuration. This is analogous to rationality emerging from the brain’s configuration.

Presuppositions are necessary, and you assume that a square cannot be triangaular, because you have already defined what a square is. A square is a conceptual idea in the mind imposed into matter. You assume that your experience of this idea is true. You also presuppose that logic corresponds to the world outside us. As you say latter, the universe is not fused with rationality. So why are you trying to say something rational about the irrational or non-rational as atheist's like it put. You presuppose that logic can bring you to truth, but what is truth for you? As we have already seen with your example of Red Dragons breathing fire, logic can be true without corresponding to reality. Reasoning upon your reasons of the way you interprete a non-rationl universe is a defult answer that makes your argumentation moot.

I think you have skewed notions of rationality and reasoning. Of course the universe is not infused with rationality or infused with reason; the universe simply is as it is. Rationality and reasoning are tools of the brain. The human mind is capable of modeling the universe in which humans live, and rationality and reasoning are tools that help in the modeling process. There is nothing incoherent about using the tool of rationality to model a universe that simply is as it is. After all, whether infused with rationality or not, there are facts about the cosmos (i.e., numbers of planets per solar system, number of solar systems per galaxy, distance from star to star, etc.). Reasoning can help us approximate those facts.

Makes no sense at all, when was a catfish ever rational? and why by changing somethings name do you think it also carrys the same nature with it?. As I said if reality as a whole has no rational interpreation to it, then it is meaningless and many atheist philosophers would agree. I can give examples if you want?

Consider all the attributes that, in your opinion, make god a necessary creature. Maybe the list includes god’s alleged omniscience. Maybe the list includes god’s alleged omnipotence. Maybe the list includes god’s alleged reticence to make humans suffer. I am sure you have a litany of characteristics that, in your mind, make your god character necessary. Now, I can posit the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish and infuse my deity with every single characteristic that you claim makes Yahweh necessary. Then, with every necessary characteristic infused, I can add distinguishing characteristics (like Magical Supernatural Gills) that make ECC different from Yahweh. By doing this, I have presented a case that is equally compelling as yours: not compelling.

There are rational interpretations of reality to be found, by the way. As I have repeatedly said, the universe is the way that it is—and that way is very specific. Even though the universe is not infused with rationality, there are still facts to be found in relation to the cosmos. The human mind, from which reasoning emerges, can approximate those facts and use them to model our universe.

You didnt read my answer very carefully, I did not say there are no metaphysical naturalists. I said that he presupposes that there is such a "reality" as metaphysical naturalism. One says, people believe reality is like that, the other is " Reality is like that". He assumes because of his worldview and dogamatic first principle that all that exists is matter, so it must be explained by nutural explanations. Have you searched the whole universe to make that bold statement? My point is are they right and how do they prove there point without forcing there presuppositions.

Actually, I responded to your words, which were, “For a start he has to presuppose that there is such a thing as a "metaphysical naturalist.” Maybe you did not mean what you actually wrote, but I cannot try to imagine what you might be intending to say.

Now, I will admit that, even though I am a metaphysical naturalist, I cannot prove metaphysical naturalism true. Neither can you prove the Christian superstition true, nor can Muslims prove their superstition, nor can Hindus prove their own. However, again, I am not working from a materialist or atheistic First Principle. I am working from a First Principle that makes evidence paramount in reaching the truth. At present, there is no good evidence for supernatural workings in the world; if and when you provide good evidence, I will reconsider. After all, there are numerous evidences that would shake my atheism.

He has not examined the evidence to come to a 100% conclusion. He has looked at it from an emperical standing point, but that does not prove rationality or consciousness comes from brain activity. I do agree that there is a relationship, but that does not mean that they are the same thing.

Where is your evidence that rationality and consciousness come from something other than brain activity? Where is your evidence that the aforementioned are supernaturally imposed on the material? I have explained this as best I can, so perhaps I need to examine your alleged evidences and show where they are faulty.

You seem to be trying to step the question, yes it does matter how bricks shape into a house? explain from an atheists worldview how bricks randomly would fall together to make a house? I dont disagree that brand new properties can emerge, even when the pieces themselves do not possess the emergent properties, My answer is that a mind behind the building is the source that puts the bricks together to make a house. Same example with the universe. a mind (God) imposes his ideas in to matter, and infuses a rational soul to work through the brain. To say that the pieces of the puzzle are less important, is a cop out, even if I am wrong.

I said that the pieces of the puzzle are less important because anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of biology knows how “the pieces” of the brain come together. The assemblage of the human body is encoded into our genes and DNA. When an egg is fertilized, all the assembly information is there to build a new human, who reflects the genes of both parents. The “recipe” to make a human brain is such that, when fully assembled, that brain can utilize the tools of rationality and reasoning. Human brains can use these tools because that is how human brains are assembled.

Yes rationality is a tool of the brain. Please tell me how the mind can tell us anything true or rational about an irrationl universe? all you are presupposing is that your logic and reasoning correspond to reality. When in fact from your irrrational worldview you are just justfiyng your absurd abstract choices and thoughts, which were produce by impersonal chemicals in your brain.


We need to get away from this “impersonal chemicals in your brain” nonsense because we have already discussed emergentism thoroughly. It does not matter that individual brain pieces and processes are irrational; what matters is that, given the assemblage of the human brain, rationality emerges from such pieces and processes. The other key point is that rationality can be used to model and discover truths about things that, themselves, are not infused with rationality. The universe has facts and figures associated with it, because the universe is how it is. Rationality can help discern those facts.

The Christian Faith is the impossiblity of the Contrary, reject it and you become irrational, having meaningless thoughts stuck in the void of an irrational universe. That is why I believe in the Transcendental Argument. If reality as a whole has no interpreation, then we are lost to our own random meaningless thoughts.

Then I guess, just to be on the safe side, you also have to believe in the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish. All I need to do is infuse my deity with every characteristic you believe makes Yahweh a necessary creature. Then, when I have infused ECC with every required characteristic, I can add additional characteristics, such as Magical Supernatural Gills. As such, my deity will be decidedly different from your own, and both could be used to solve the "problem" that TAG confects.