Panentheism and Brute Facts

[Esquilax]

3) This is a can of worms I didn't expect from you. :o You're not a presuppositionalist, are you?
Rational thought is valid by definition. By 'rational thought', we means a means of argumentation that follows what we consider correct structure and inference rules. The acceptance of the 'validity' of rational thought is an axiom. One can [try and] reject it, but no one will take you seriously.

I've never understood the way certain theists seem to think that rational thought is some grand mystery that has no external validity or reference points, because it so clearly does. Any given thought can be examined both in terms of the internal consistency of its premises, and the degree to which those premises conform to the observable world around us. Should the thought manage to be both internally consistent and reflective of the world outside of our heads, it can be said to be rational in the sense that... well, it works.

Further investigation might reveal something that revokes the rational status of the thought, but that's no less true of a theist doing the same thing, since nobody is ever working with a complete complement of facts.