My Response (Part 5)

As normal we can see that an Atheist just never gets it and assumes by reductionalism that the world just "is". Lets not look for a rational cause for rationality, lets just say rationality exists because it exists. Waw that tells us a lot...

Looking at the evidence with an open mind, there is every reason to think rationality and consciousness spring from brain function, much as one’s personality, character and memory are bound up with brain function. Look at Phineas Gage, who suffered a traumatic brain injury and ended up with a dramatically altered personality. Consider degenerative illnesses that ravage the brain, such as Alzheimer’s disease. In these cases, we see that injuries to, or degeneration of, the brain result in the slow erasure of the “self”: memory, character, personality, reasoning ability, etc. Show me a shred of evidence that rationality and consciousness are supernaturally imposed. And then explain how brain afflictions can so thoroughly mask a fully functional soul.

looking at evidence with an open mind, oh mine was closed and yours was open, oh Im sorry. All you have proved again is that there is a relationship between them. If the brain is injured then the other can not function through it as it should, because the two are related. But this does not prove that rationality is the brain only.

Nobody is saying we should rely on irrationality. I have explained, ad nauseum, that humans employ rational thinking in order to solve problems and discern facts. It just so happens that this rationality is emergent, rather than supernaturally endowed.


The fact is you are, you believe by random evolution that the mind has been produce by non-rational reactions. If this is the case then what is in our heads, which is thoughts that are based on random chance. For it is not there because of any rational reason's is it ?. The problem is you just want to think that the non-rational produces a mind that can think rationaly and from then on all thinking is rational. But that is a huge leap...rationality being emergent is your naturalistic presupposition which makes everything "HAVE" to be interpreted and explained in this dogma. You just dont want to acceapt that in your radom worldview all thinking is deterrmined by what "is' and what 'is" is not rational or ordered logicaly as there is no plan or order to it. why should our thought s correspond to reality?

The cosmos is brimming with facts. Here are some:

1. The universe is about 13.7 billion years old.
2. Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old.
3. Earth is the third planet from the Sun.
4. The mass of Mars is roughly 6.4191×10^23 kilograms

Oh these are pure objective facts are they, so you were there at the beginning, you saw how the earth has aged over time and stayed the same ever since, aging at the same rate over millions of years. No you stand in the present and find a formula or theory of age and set it on the present world to give us the age of the universe. I mean who says mathamatics corresponds to the outside world? I thought you said it was un wise to want rationality without a mind, but we have numbers and mathamatics floating in the world. Again you have just labeled matter with your abstract formulas.

I could continue endlessly. The universe had to develop in some way, and this is the way it developed. Trying to apply “rationality” to it, frankly, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of rationality as a concept. Rationality is a tool of the mind. It is almost like you are asking, “Why does the universe not have a memory?” or “Why does the universe not speak Aramaic?” It is unwise to attempt to divorce rationality from a mind able to use it.


I agree rationality is a tool of the mind and it can tells us things, and only of our experiences of our thoughts. You have the problem in trying to rationalized the irrational. I dont believe that the world outside our mind is rational in itself. but i do believe that a rational mind is behind it and in its laws. And that reality as a whole has a full interpreation.

Now, the universe, as I repeatedly have said, is how it is. The mass of Mars is as it is whether humans have a formalized measuring system or not. The age of the universe is as it is whether humans have invented the notion of a “year” or not. Inescapably, there are absolute facts about the universe simply because the universe developed as it did. Tools of the human mind help us model the universe and discern those facts. It is remarkably simple.

Yes the universe is just how it "is", but it doesnt have to be what your formula says it is. Apperence and reality can be different things. I mean if one person calls an object we have never seen before a "Zar" and another person calls it a "Mar" it does not have to be any one of them. It is what it "is" and does not have to be what the formula is saying it is. I believe God has interpreted all things and things are what they are, before we come along with our opinions or formulas to try and repersent them. As for absolute objective facts from humans with limited knowledge and experience, this is nonsense in a non-rational world.

The Greeks looked at the world and tried to interpret change, Plato thought that the universal abstract truths were part of the eternal forms, Aristolole thought you could just pull the abstractions out of the objects to the mind, and you believe that the non-rational reactions of evolution produced universal forms and truths, which must some how correspond to reality. But why? just saying they do because that is the way it "is" is not an answer. Its easy to prove anything by saying the reason for all things, is just becaue it "is'. For you nature just is that way!

I believe that man re-interpretes God's eternal interpretaion on a finite level.Because we are created in God's image we think God's thoughts after him on a finite stystem.Because God has interpreted all reality, our thoughts correspond to what "is" and is knowledge and is not based on just our abstract opinions about raw matter in motion. Knowledge is of knowledge!

Yes, one could read a fundamentally irrational book; a good example is the Bible. I could provide facts about a copy of the Bible I might possess, such as the language in which it is published; the weight of the tome; the number of pages; the frequency with which words appear; the color of the text; the condition of the binding; and many others

You missed the point, I said a non-rational book, in the sense that you cant make sense of anything on the page?

Whether I reply to you the next time depends entirely on whether you show signs of understanding what I have been repeating endlessly.
We have been through emergentism enough already. The brick and house example should be enough to illustrate the principle. For real-world illustration, look at the human brain, from which rationality and reasoning emerge.


You think just because you can state the same argument everytime, that i believe it is true, I dont...You assumed it is that why for no rational reason. Its nice to say "it just is".

Humans model the universe and approximate these facts by using rationality and reasoning, which are tools of our minds. We impose our models onto the universe—never fully comprehending it as it independently exists. However, our faculties are good enough, and the universe regular enough, that truth approximations can be had.


Yes it works, but not from your worldview, you have no reasons for anything as reasoning is produce from non-reason. To make it clear I have never held that the universe has its own mind or is rational in itself.