My Response ...

The Jolly Nihilist

Nobody has yet proved that things such as rationality and reasoning require a foundation of the type to which TAG appeals. You are asking for a foundation that might not be required. Can you prove the necessity of a supernatural foundation?


You say nobody has proved that such things as rationality do not 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.

Some presuppositions, indeed, are necessary. I presuppose that a square cannot be triangular. I presuppose that, within the same time zone, it cannot simultaneously be noon and midnight. That is, I presuppose the impossibility of logical contradictions. More importantly, I presuppose that evidence is the best way for human primates to discover truth. This presupposition is axiomatic—a First Principle from which to argue. My devotion to evidence, in itself, does not determine the god issue; I do not simply presuppose a godless cosmos. My atheism—that is, my lack of theism—springs from theism’s poor evidence. You wish to make theism, itself, your First Principle. Such is not an axiom; it is question beggary. It is not a principle from which to argue; it is a default answer that makes argumentation moot


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.

By the way, if you say, “Without God, there are no facts to be found,” I might as well say, “Without the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish, there are no facts to be found.” Both are meaningless


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?

Of course there is such a thing as a metaphysical naturalist. Metaphysical naturalists reject the supernatural and believe there are natural explanations for everything. Whether such people are right or are not, metaphysical naturalists exist.


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.

Not at all. He has examined the evidence and come to realize that consciousness and human rationality emerge from brain activity. That is, consciousness and rationality are emergent. They are emergent in exactly the same way a dwelling, such as a suburban house, emerges from bricks. Bricks, in themselves, do not possess the properties of a house. However, in a particular arrangement, a house emerges from those very same bricks. Matter does the same: Mere matter can be configured into a soda can, a wooden desk or a human brain, from which consciousness can emerge.


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.

The point is not how the bricks get into the shape of a house; the point is that, when put into a particular configuration, brand new properties can emerge, despite the fact that the pieces themselves do not possess the emergent properties. Again, simple matter, in different configurations, can produce a can of orange soda or the human brain. The pieces of the puzzle are less important than the configuration thereof, because the configuration dictates what properties emerge.


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.

Some brains are evolved enough to utilize rational thought. As such, rationality is a tool of the brain. The universe is not infused with rationality; the universe simply is as it is. Rationality helps us model the universe and reach tentative truths about it.


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.

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.