My Response (Part 4)

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.

Well the burden of proof is on both sides, not just mine. You havent shown or proved that rationality emerges from brain configuration. You have just seen a relationship and then assumed that one produces the other. Science (not all) is based on what works and there can be different theories. Just because your theory works does not mean it is true. Its an interpretation of assuming the effect comes from the cause, but you cant see that, only that there is some relationship.It has not be proven by anyone. As for rationality needing a rational source, which would you take, when your sick you go to a doctor and he gives you the right medicine after rational thought or you go and throw a ball at the medicine shelves with your eyes closed and what ever falls off you will take? I mean the irrational can give you a rational medical source? I dont think so..

Objective data is also seen from within an established paradigm of expectations and assumptions, which determines what data is collected, how they are collected, and the use to which it is applied. As a result all data is theory laden. Its your interpretation.

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.

Yes the universe is simply what "is' non-rational. Can you tell me how you model something that is non-rational with conceptual forms?Are you telling me there are mute facts in the universe. Facts that just stand out there with no interpreatioan to themselves, in isollation with no rational context? Please tell me what is a Fact?
A fact is not what I say it is or my interpretation.True objective facts are revelation, there is a rational order, a unity of truths between the facts before we come to them. If you reject that reality as a whole has no interpreation before we come to it, then all you are doing is impossing the world of your mind upon it. For you nature is ordered by our priori ideas or categories inherent in the mind, not in nature. Can you explain why our ideas should correspond to the non-rational.

Could you read a non-rational book? and give true facts about it? if not try interpreting a non-rational universe. The truth is we do find facts and we do find evidence but your worldview does not give us a reason how!

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.

The problem here is you are just copying the attributes of my God, but in my worldview I take these attributes to be given to me by divine revelation, the Bible. A source from outside this world. Of course you wont believe this and you dont have to, its not your worldview. But working in your worldview you have just reasoned that your catfish must have the same attributes. Does not prove anything...

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.


Good to see you put , there are rational interpretationsssssssssss. Yes there are many and just saying the universe is the way it is, just is, doesnt tell us anything about it. Again we come down to what a fact is? If I found a fact in the universe I would want to know what its relationship was to another fact and then to all the facts. Well I would if i wanted the claim it to be a true fact. That implies that there is a fixed eternal interpreation to reality, that facts are all part of a unit of truth with a context guided under a rational mind (God) for man to re-interprete. But for you "facts just are there floating in the void...Evidence is based on facts, but you are interpreting what the fact must be for the first time as it has no interpretation for itself. You just look at an object, and label it with a theory. Postmodernist come accross as mad, but in your worldview they are right.

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 encoded with DNA, and DNA is information and information is not physical. The ink on the pages of my books, are not the same thing has the context repersented by the ink. So no it does not prove that it was by a non-rational source.

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.

So are you saying if you re-arrange an irrational book, with all it pages enough (the pieces), the book will become rational? You seem to think that minds have facts in them and data and figures and then also the universe has them as well... I thought facts were an interpretation of a mind? a context of knowledge? and also order is a concept of the mind!