Argument #2: From the Nature of Rationality

[hackenslash]

This argument's dead without even breaking a sweat:

1.   If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;

Why?

yet another ex recto blind assertion, and we need go no further. Further, this all rests on the assumption that the umbilicus is a source of information about the real world, and that navel-gazing has any utility in demonstrating an existence postulate.

Got any, you know... evidence?

[Jac3510]

Well at least we're finally getting down to the nitty-gritty, meaning that Jac has reached the point where he's citing scripture. I can only guess that his next opus will be "Arguments For Why Everything In The Bible is True."

The citation of Scripture is only for the Christian, as the statement itself made clear. Christians ought not have a blind faith because the Bible itself decries blind faith.

If you want to know how the passage decries blind faith:

The word for "answer" here is apologia, from which we have gotten our word "apologetics." The word is derived from two words, apo and logos, where the latter has the basic idea of reason or thought and the first means "out of." Etymologically, it means "[that which comes] out of reason." It is used in both secular and biblical Greek to talk about legal and rational defense. In short, your "apology" was why you believe what you do.

Sadly, most Christians can't offer this apology--this rational defense--when asked for it. We certainly have a hope--the future resurrection of glory with Jesus Christ. But when someone asks us why we believe it, most reply, "Because its in the Bible" or something related. We can talk about what is in the Bible with non-Christians, but you can't do so under the assumption of divine inspiration anymore than a Muslim should expect to get anywhere talking to a Christian assuming the Koran's inspiration. Historical discussions are one thing and require one set of ideas. Theological discussions are quite another.

[Jac3510]

This argument's dead without even breaking a sweat:

1.   If rational thought is possible, materialism is false;

Why?

yet another ex recto blind assertion, and we need go no further. Further, this all rests on the assumption that the umbilicus is a source of information about the real world, and that navel-gazing has any utility in demonstrating an existence postulate.

Got any, you know... evidence?

Yup. If you'd like to respond to the issues  we've been discussing throughout the thread relating to self-determination, external determination, prescription,and description, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. If you are just going to offer more boring assertions, as most of your last attempt at refutation proved to be, I'll not waste any more of my time.

As always, I'm looking for discussion, not pontification.

edit:

Let me give you a hint on where to start so that you don't get as off track as you did in the first case. In the very first post in which I introduced the argument, I stated:

Why should we believe it? Very simply, because if materialism were true, then everything would be determined by the laws of nature. Everything. Rocks don’t stop to ponder whether or not they should fall. They do so because that’s just what happens. But that means that what goes on in your head is no exception. Your thoughts arise, in this scheme, from what your brain does. Yet the brain is just chemistry and biology. It may be very complicated chemistry and biology, but it is still just chemistry and biology. This atom is colliding with that one which causes that atom to do that. Ultimately, your thoughts are determined by the chemistry in your brain.

In other words, if there is no part of you that is capable of stepping “outside” the laws of nature and “thinking for itself,” then everything in your brainâ€"including your thoughtsâ€"is absolutely determined by the laws of nature. If that is true, then you aren’t thinking anymore than a rock is thinking when it falls. You are doing the exact same thing a rock is doingâ€"exactly what the laws of nature demand of you at this moment in this time given your particular physical composition.

Now, we don’t consider a rock’s falling “rational.” It isn’t irrational. It is arational, meaning it is just doing what it is doing without any thought, because that is what it does. Likewise, under materialism, your thoughts aren’t rational. They are arational. The idea that you are considering arguments for anything and coming to the “right conclusion” is just an illusion. You are thinking what you are thinking, as am I, because this is what nature has decided we will think at any given moment.

In short, there is no “intellectual faculty by which knowledge is obtained.” There is just chemistry going on in your brain.

[hackenslash]

Yes, you keep saying that, without having attempted to even address my objections. Shall I add this to your list of evasions? The question is straightforward and simple enough, and since it forms the beginning of your argument, it's a large stumbling block to get over. In your OP here, your dealing with the functioning of the brain was woefully inadequate. The simple fact that the workings of the brain are entirely electro-chemical in nature doesn't support your vacuous blind assertion that this means that all thought is deterministic. Once again, you are overlooking principles that are critical in elucidating thata which you are attempting to critique. Principle among them this time are the principles of emergence and stochasticity.

Frankly, this is still nothing more than weak apologetic excrement.

[Jac3510]

Yes, you keep saying that, without having attempted to even address my objections. Shall I add this to your list of evasions? The question is straightforward and simple enough, and since it forms the beginning of your argument, it's a large stumbling block to get over. In your OP here, your dealing with the functioning of the brain was woefully inadequate. The simple fact that the workings of the brain are entirely electro-chemical in nature doesn't support your vacuous blind assertion that this means that all thought is deterministic. Once again, you are overlooking principles that are critical in elucidating thata which you are attempting to critique. Principle among them this time are the principles of emergence and stochasticity.

Frankly, this is still nothing more than weak apologetic excrement.

Ah, yes, and the normal Hack comes right back out, substituting rhetoric and obscenity for actual thought. You raise a question as a defeater that I raised and answered in my first post, and rather than responding to the reasoning in the first post, you simply announce your triumph.

I've come to have a good deal of respect for the vast majority of members on this board. You, however, have earned the foe again. As I said before, I'm looking for reasoned debate. You clearly aren't capable of it, which is why I foe'd you from the beginning. You had your chance, and you decided your own entertainment was more important than real discussion. A pity, since some on this board are actually interested in your views. You've basically told them all to piss off, that you're more interested in vitriol. As for me, I'll not waste one more moment on your sad attempts at preaching. When I want a sermon, I'll go to church.

The good news in all this, anyway, is that I hardly think the board will lose the slightest value in this. There are plenty of people here who have more than adequately questioned my positions and have been able to come to their own conclusions. I only expect more in the future.

[humblesmurph]

hack,

You've been foe'd by Jac, but could you explain your objection to me?  It seems to me that materialism entails determinism.  Determinism seems incompatible with rational choices as defined by Jac.  Jac explained that in the OP.  Davin and epepke gave terrific explanations of why computers could be said to be thinking rationally, but computers were still created by  humans making rational choices.  One could simply say that even if rational thought was being performed by a computer, that rational thought still entails a creator.  Materialism denies a creator of humans.  How is Jac's argument unsound?  How is his definition of rational thought unsound?

[hackenslash]

hack,

You've been foe'd by Jac, but could you explain your objection to me?  It seems to me that materialism entails determinism.  Determinism seems incompatible with rational choices as defined by Jac.  Jac explained that in the OP.  Davin and epepke gave terrific explanations of why computers could be said to be thinking rationally, but computers were still created by  humans making rational choices.  One could simply say that even if rational thought was being performed by a computer, that rational thought still entails a creator.  Materialism denies a creator of humans.  How is Jac's argument unsound?  How is his definition of rational thought unsound?

It's unsound because it's rooted in the assumption implicit in his first premise. That the brain operates on a purely electrochemical basis in no way makes it deterministic. This is substantially supported in the simple fact that our brains are wired completely differently. Our synaptic connections are made through our experiences and what we learn. It isn't his definition of rational thought that is unsound (although it's less than completely rigorous), but that first premise, which is stated as if it's uncontroversial, but fails to take into account the principles of stochasticity and emergence. The brain and its functions are both emergent and stochastic. Moreover, the functions of the brain reside in the quantum realm, which absolutely rules out determinism, because all neural processes are subject to the uncertainty principle.

[hackenslash]

Just so that this doesn't go unanswered:

Yes, you keep saying that, without having attempted to even address my objections. Shall I add this to your list of evasions? The question is straightforward and simple enough, and since it forms the beginning of your argument, it's a large stumbling block to get over. In your OP here, your dealing with the functioning of the brain was woefully inadequate. The simple fact that the workings of the brain are entirely electro-chemical in nature doesn't support your vacuous blind assertion that this means that all thought is deterministic. Once again, you are overlooking principles that are critical in elucidating thata which you are attempting to critique. Principle among them this time are the principles of emergence and stochasticity.

Frankly, this is still nothing more than weak apologetic excrement.

Ah, yes, and the normal Hack comes right back out, substituting rhetoric and obscenity for actual thought.

What obscenity? I see no obscenity in the quoted post (which I include here only to reinforce the point.

You raise a question as a defeater that I raised and answered in my first post, and rather than responding to the reasoning in the first post, you simply announce your triumph.

Already dealt with this horseshit. You didn't raise and answer it in the post, except to deliver a pathetically ignorant presentation of the operating principles of the brain. This was dealt with in the above post. I note you still have no responses to the valid rebuttals of your point. The question stands unanswered.

I've come to have a good deal of respect for the vast majority of members on this board.

Good, they deserve it.

You, however, have earned the foe again.

Diddums. It amuses me to think that my comments were for your benefit. I have no interest in discussing this guff with an apologist. My comments are for the onlookers only, to see that that which you extract from your rectum doesn't go unchallenged. It also amuses me that anybody who claims to be rational will reach for the foe function at the drop of a hat, especially when he doesn't want to, or can't, answer the challenges put before him.

As I said before, I'm looking for reasoned debate.

No you aren't. You're interested i the same thing that all apologists employing your line of argumentation are after, namely the obfuscation of reality so that you can bury your pathetic imaginary friend in your empty rhetoric. If you were remotely interested in reasoned debate, you'd actually rise to the challenges put to you. That's OK, many of your ilk simply run away when it gets too hot.

You clearly aren't capable of it, which is why I foe'd you from the beginning. You had your chance, and you decided your own entertainment was more important than real discussion.

I'm not here for entertainment. I'm only here to see that ignorant guff doesn't go unchallenged. i can tell that others here see you as being very reasonable. I, however, have a great deal of experience in dealing with your obfuscatory, ignorant wibble, and I recognise it for precisely what it is, namely apologetic bullshit with precisely zero utility. All your arguments are circular, precisely because you aren't interested in enquiring about reality, only in supporting your prior assumptions. Another great source of amusement is anybody attempting to apply logic without once referring to the principle of parsimony.

A pity, since some on this board are actually interested in your views. You've basically told them all to piss off,

I've told them nothing of the kind. Indeed, I have presented my objections and arguments in a vastly toned-down manner, yet you want to behave like I shot you in the face, just because I refuse to genuflect before your peurile little masturbation fantasy.

that you're more interested in vitriol.

Not at all. I'm interested in the truth. You, on the other hand, are only interested in your tortuous attempted justifications for believing in that which is entirely illogical, unsupportable, and without merit in any way, shape or form.

As for me, I'll not waste one more moment on your sad attempts at preaching. When I want a sermon, I'll go to church.

Lovely case of projection you have there.

The good news in all this, anyway, is that I hardly think the board will lose the slightest value in this. There are plenty of people here who have more than adequately questioned my positions and have been able to come to their own conclusions. I only expect more in the future.

While I have nothing but respect for the arguments presented by others, my own objection has not been addressed. Your first premise here is nothing more than made-up nonsense, rooted in crass ignorance of how the brain operates.

Run away all you like. Another apologist will be along any moment, I'm sure.

[humblesmurph]

hack,

You've been foe'd by Jac, but could you explain your objection to me?  It seems to me that materialism entails determinism.  Determinism seems incompatible with rational choices as defined by Jac.  Jac explained that in the OP.  Davin and epepke gave terrific explanations of why computers could be said to be thinking rationally, but computers were still created by  humans making rational choices.  One could simply say that even if rational thought was being performed by a computer, that rational thought still entails a creator.  Materialism denies a creator of humans.  How is Jac's argument unsound?  How is his definition of rational thought unsound?

It's unsound because it's rooted in the assumption implicit in his first premise. That the brain operates on a purely electrochemical basis in no way makes it deterministic. This is substantially supported in the simple fact that our brains are wired completely differently. Our synaptic connections are made through our experiences and what we learn. It isn't his definition of rational thought that is unsound (although it's less than completely rigorous), but that first premise, which is stated as if it's uncontroversial, but fails to take into account the principles of stochasticity and emergence. The brain and its functions are both emergent and stochastic. Moreover, the functions of the brain reside in the quantum realm, which absolutely rules out determinism, because all neural processes are subject to the uncertainty principle.

I figured you'd say something smarty arty like that.  Stochasticity?  Show off   Thanks hack.

[hackenslash]

Just for clarification, and for the edification of those without a google button, a stochastic system is one whose future state is dependent upon initial conditions plus one or more random variables (where random means 'statistically independent', not 'uncaused' or 'without mechanism'). A perfect example of a stochastic system is DNA, which acquires mutations through many mechanisms, but what the mutation might be or where it might occur in the genome are statistically independent, which basically means that any given mutation is precisely as likely as any other, based on initial conditions. The brain is another perfect example, because future brain states are dependent on initial conditions and random variables in the form of statistically independent new synaptic connections, based on unique learning or other neural input. To state categorically that the brain being material in nature necessarily renders it deterministic is crass in the extreme. On this point alone, this thread fails.

[Davin]

Davin, since you are so hung up on scientific description, let me just ask you a simple question:

Is gravity a prescriptive or descriptive process?

Never thought of it as a process, always thought of it as a force. It couldn't really be much of a process, only one step. Also gravity is neither prescriptive or descriptive. The theory of gravity however is very descriptive.

So the only difference between the decisions made by Deep Blue and the decisions made by Kasparov, is that Kasparov could choose to make an irrational decision. Well, we could program that into Deep Blue, would that satisfy this new condition?

You couldn't program that into DB. That's the whole point. DB will always make "choices" based on what its programming requires. If it finally identifies the best move and then it comes across a line, "IF X > 0 ActRationally(x) ELSE ActIrrationally(y);" then DB still is required to make a decision based on its dataset. DB doesn't have the choice to act irrationally, and thus, it doesn't the choice to act rationally. It's behavior is merely descriptive and not at all prescriptive.

That's not the only logical structure available for getting a program to make decisions. Another problem is that there aren't "lines" once the program is compiled, the only purpose for "lines" is to make it easier for the programmer to read and edit the program, but are just a waste for the machine. Despite all that, wouldn't that be the same thing Kasparov would do? Kasparov would think of the best answer, then just decide to make a bad move. It would be too late for Kasparov to act irrationally, because he'd already thought about it, has what he thinks is the best move, but decides not to make that move and make a bad move instead. He's already gone through the rational thought process, but decided that making a bad move was more important to him.

Your described process is also a waste of time, to be more efficient Deep Blue should first see if it is going to be rational, that way it wouldn't have to waste all that time looking for the best answer if it's not going to act rationally.

Wrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

Yes, just a dataset. It doesn't matter the source of that data. It could have been built in or learned.That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions, but the dataset is the determinative factor always. And it is different from what people learn exactly as I described above. We have the ability to choose. Computers don't.

No, still wrong. The dataset is a determining factor, but not the only one. That doesn't explain how humans basing decisions on what they learn is different than a program basing decisions on what it learns, obviously both have the ability choose... programs would be pretty useless if they couldn't decide on anything.

How is that different from, "if I knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how he thinks then I'd know what he would do"?

Because you can't know what Kasparov will do. You can know what he ought to do. But Kasparov, unlike DB, is not a machine. He has the ability to act both rationally and irrationally. DB does not. DB just responds to its dataset.

Well here is the comparison problem: You said we can determine what Deep Blue would do if we looked at it's dataset and it's programming, while we can't do that to Kasparov. That makes it an unfair comparison because we can't compare them like that. Until we know how the brain works that is. Who's to say that if we knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how brain works, that we wouldn't be able to determine what Kasparov would do?

So, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?

Yes, of course. By defining rational, you define irrational and vice versa. You may as well ask for a one sided coin as to ask for rationality without irrationality. It's the same issue as with good and evil. Giving someone the ability to choose the good, by definition, is to give them the ability to choose evil. Rationality presupposes choice, else it is not rational.

I guess that goes back to the definitions of rational thought.

With my definitions it's easy to determine whether one is thinking rationally or not: Examine the reasoning you went through to come to your conclusion for any fallacies, if no fallacy, then it's a rational thought.

Would you please explain the process for determining whether someone has a rational thought with your definition?

[Sophus]

So.... is believing in Zeus more rational than atheism?

What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

By this argument it seems as long as I put faith in some sort of all powerful being I would be far more rational than any skeptic.

[Jac3510]

Davin, since you are so hung up on scientific description, let me just ask you a simple question:

Is gravity a prescriptive or descriptive process?

Never thought of it as a process, always thought of it as a force. It couldn't really be much of a process, only one step. Also gravity is neither prescriptive or descriptive. The theory of gravity however is very descriptive.

All qualifications aside, fine, I agree. The theory of gravity is descriptive. And why would you not call it prescriptive? Bear with me, because this should help me explain my basic point, and it should help us identify our difference of thought here.

So the only difference between the decisions made by Deep Blue and the decisions made by Kasparov, is that Kasparov could choose to make an irrational decision. Well, we could program that into Deep Blue, would that satisfy this new condition?

You couldn't program that into DB. That's the whole point. DB will always make "choices" based on what its programming requires. If it finally identifies the best move and then it comes across a line, "IF X > 0 ActRationally(x) ELSE ActIrrationally(y);" then DB still is required to make a decision based on its dataset. DB doesn't have the choice to act irrationally, and thus, it doesn't the choice to act rationally. It's behavior is merely descriptive and not at all prescriptive.

That's not the only logical structure available for getting a program to make decisions. Another problem is that there aren't "lines" once the program is compiled, the only purpose for "lines" is to make it easier for the programmer to read and edit the program, but are just a waste for the machine. Despite all that, wouldn't that be the same thing Kasparov would do? Kasparov would think of the best answer, then just decide to make a bad move. It would be too late for Kasparov to act irrationally, because he'd already thought about it, has what he thinks is the best move, but decides not to make that move and make a bad move instead. He's already gone through the rational thought process, but decided that making a bad move was more important to him.

Your described process is also a waste of time, to be more efficient Deep Blue should first see if it is going to be rational, that way it wouldn't have to waste all that time looking for the best answer if it's not going to act rationally.

Calculating the best move isn't rational. Nor is making the right move rational. "Rational" implies a certain context. For example, let's say Qh3 was the best move on the board possible. Kasparov and DB can both tell you that for reasons that neither you nor I could possibly think of. Now, suppose a brand new chess player just decides on a whim to make the same move. There is a difference in context. Kasparov and DB have made certain calculations. For the new player, it just strikes his fancy. For Kasparov, the move may be rational (we'll address DB next). For the new player, it isn't rational or irrational. It was just done "on a whim." Beginner's luck.

So why is it rational for Kasparov? For two reasons: first, he is capable of considering the move in the context of other moves. DB can certainly do that. However, what Kasparov can do that DB can't is, once he has discovered the best move, choose to act in a manner that is not in his best interest. If he decides to make another move, we can say that he made an irrational move. There was no reason for it. In fact, there were reasons not to do so. The same can't be said about the new player. Their bad moves aren't necessarily irrational. The best move they have under the circumstances may be a bad move that Kasparov can take advantage of, whereas had Kasparov himself made the move, it would have been irrational.

DB cannot fulfill this second aspect of the criteria for rationality, namely, free choice. DB is not free to make its own decisions. Its decisions are 100% determined by its programming. There is nothing "inside" of DB that can step outside of its dataset and decide whether or not it wants to execute the command. To colloquial terms, it doesn't have free will. It doesn't have a choice between being rational or irrational; ergo, it isn't being "rational" at all. It is just doing what DB does. To put it in the technical terms I've been using through this thread, it makes no sense to talk about DB's moves in prescriptive terms, i.e., "DB ought to move his queen to h3." You may as well tell a rock it "ought" to fall. If the program determines that to be most valuable move given its dataset, it will make that move. If not, it will make another. The entire process is strictly descriptive. Again, there is, then, no rationality.

Wrong. Not just a dataset. Any way, how is this different than people basing their decisions on what they've learned?

Yes, just a dataset. It doesn't matter the source of that data. It could have been built in or learned.That dataset, of course, is acted upon by a library of functions, but the dataset is the determinative factor always. And it is different from what people learn exactly as I described above. We have the ability to choose. Computers don't.

No, still wrong. The dataset is a determining factor, but not the only one. That doesn't explain how humans basing decisions on what they learn is different than a program basing decisions on what it learns, obviously both have the ability choose... programs would be pretty useless if they couldn't decide on anything.

Yes, still just a dataset. That dataset may be a part of the initial program. They may be learned by repeated use or by exposure to some environment. But the program always acts on data. Computer programs don't "choose." They calculate variables based on the program's architecture and execute based on that. In other words, a computer's actions are strictly deterministic.

Human thought doesn't seem to be that way. If it turns out that it is, then I argue that human thought isn't rational either. That's my whole point. A predetermined thought is not a rational thought. It's just a predetermined thought. It isn't rational because rationality presuppose prescriptive value: we ought to think this or that. If we do, we're rational; if we don't, we're irrational. That kind of language makes absolutely no sense when applied to software. The best you can say is, "It ought to do this or that [if I've understood the data correctly]." In fact, this is the entire reason we can troubleshoot programs. We expect certain output given certain input precisely because the output is determined by the input relative to the program's architecture. If the output is not what we expect, then the problem is either with the data or with the series of commands it is subject to. We look until we find the problem and we fix it.

How is that different from, "if I knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how he thinks then I'd know what he would do"?

Because you can't know what Kasparov will do. You can know what he ought to do. But Kasparov, unlike DB, is not a machine. He has the ability to act both rationally and irrationally. DB does not. DB just responds to its dataset.

Well here is the comparison problem: You said we can determine what Deep Blue would do if we looked at it's dataset and it's programming, while we can't do that to Kasparov. That makes it an unfair comparison because we can't compare them like that. Until we know how the brain works that is. Who's to say that if we knew what Kasparov knew, what he was thinking and how brain works, that we wouldn't be able to determine what Kasparov would do?

Again, if it turns out that the human brain is nothing but a complex, deterministic machine--which must be the case under materialism--then Kasparov would work exactly like DB. In that case, human thought is not rational, because it is strictly deterministic. But since our experience strongly suggests that we have the ability to choose to act freely in an irrational manner, then we have good reason, until proven otherwise, to take it for granted that we can, in fact, be rational or irrational, and that the way we think is fundamentally different from the way computer's think.

Let me repeat for emphasis, if future studies demonstrate that our brains work exactly like a highly complex DB, and that we, in fact, have no self-determination over our thoughts, then the conclusion is not that computers are rational, but that human thought is arational, which is the point of my entire argument. Externally determined thought is not rational. Only thought that has a self-determined component can be considered rational (or irrational) because of the prescriptive nature of rationality.

So, by your definition; in order to be rational, one must be able to act irrationally?

Yes, of course. By defining rational, you define irrational and vice versa. You may as well ask for a one sided coin as to ask for rationality without irrationality. It's the same issue as with good and evil. Giving someone the ability to choose the good, by definition, is to give them the ability to choose evil. Rationality presupposes choice, else it is not rational.

I guess that goes back to the definitions of rational thought.

With my definitions it's easy to determine whether one is thinking rationally or not: Examine the reasoning you went through to come to your conclusion for any fallacies, if no fallacy, then it's a rational thought.

Would you please explain the process for determining whether someone has a rational thought with your definition?

The process is just the same as yours. I want to make an A on my test. Logic and experience tells me I'd better study, not stay up all night talking on a discussion board. The rational thing to do is to study. The irrational thing to do is to stay up all night talking on the discussion board.

Notice the nature of the choice. By defining a rational thing, you are simultaneously defining the irrational thing. If the rational thing to do is turn right, then the irrational thing is to turn left. If the rational thing is to make save your money, the irrational thing is to spend it. It is meaningless to speak of a rational choice without an opposite irrational choice. Further, it is meaningless to talk about something being "rational" if there is no choice at all. Suppose you and I are playing chess (since that's the running analogy). Suppose you have forced me into one move from checkmate. The only move I can legally make is, say, a pawn up one space. Is that a "rational" choice? No. It is neither rational nor irrational. If I tried to move my knight, you would object that the move is illegal, not irrational. It is neither a good move nor a bad move. It is the only move the game allows. There is no rationality to it. It is mechanical--determined.

If, however, I have two moves--I can move my pawn or my knight, and if the knight will not only preserve me from checkmate, but put you in checkmate--and I make move the pawn rather than the knight, you can rightly accuse me of being irrational in my move.

So rationality as a whole only has meaning where there is choice--where there is prescription, or "ought." If, then, human thought is determined, there is no ought, there is only "is." Therefore, there is no rationality. No position is rational. All thoughts are arational, just as the falling of rock is arational. If materialism is true and my thoughts are determined not by me, but my physics, then I have no choice to think other than like I do, just as you have no choice but to think other than like you do. I don't think this way by any virtue of my intelligence anymore than you do. I think this way because nature so made me, just as it so made me a white, male human.

No program, DB or otherwise, can meet this criteria of self-determination. It seems that we can. If so, there must be some aspect of us outside of the laws of physics that allows for self-determination. Shy of that, we are completely externally determined and arational.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So.... is believing in Zeus more rational than atheism?

What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

By this argument it seems as long as I put faith in some sort of all powerful being I would be far more rational than any skeptic.

Belief in god or God or anything in between has no bearing on the discussion. Pantheism doesn't hold to a belief in God but it could explain the presence of rationality by appealing to the universal consciousness.

The argument simply proves that there is something that exists and operates beyond the laws of nature. If the only things that exist and operate are found within and governed by the laws of nature, then rational thought is impossible. If you believe that rational thought is possible, I argue that the only way to be logically consistent--indeed, to be rational--is to accept that there must be a supernatural aspect to the human, whatever that aspect may be.

[superfes]

Pardon my troll...

The argument simply proves that there is something that exists and operates beyond the laws of nature.

Your argument is just an argument and has proven nothing. I would like to say more about your understanding of nature in itself, but I think that reading and education is something one has to be interested in in the first place.

If the only things that exist and operate are found within and governed by the laws of nature, then rational thought is impossible.

Rational thought is thought with reason, and thus any time you have a reason for thinking something... it is rational, so I don't understand why you say this.

If you believe that rational thought is possible, I argue that the only way to be logically consistent--indeed, to be rational--is to accept that there must be a supernatural aspect to the human, whatever that aspect may be.

I would argue the opposite, I believe that rational thought is impossible when you believe in a higher power, because you either believe that God is in control and thus there is no free will, there's no such thing as right and wrong and everything happens for a reason...

Or you believe that God gave us free will and some how that means that God is waiting for us all to make good choices and somehow through hundreds of years of murderous and holy wars somehow through the generations some few found the right answer which is God...

If I have just created a fallacy, inform me of such please.

But I do believe that as long as religions exist rational thought of believers will be limited to circular reasoning.

Again, apologies for the troll.

Look forward to reading this post further.

[Sophus]

The argument simply proves that there is something that exists and operates beyond the laws of nature. If the only things that exist and operate are found within and governed by the laws of nature, then rational thought is impossible. If you believe that rational thought is possible, I argue that the only way to be logically consistent--indeed, to be rational--is to accept that there must be a supernatural aspect to the human, whatever that aspect may be

This claim is still irrational. You're confusing epistemology with reason.

Do I believe rational thought is possible? Sure. Do I believe absolute knowledge can be obtained through it? Nope.

You will never prove anything that exists beyond nature or is supernatural. By its very definition you can't.