For the Thinking Man.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Ok. The consequence of your argument here is that the godless cannot think rationally without god if I understand. So essentially you're saying that god is neccessary for rational thought.

I'd like to know what your definition of godless is. Is it anyone that doesn't believe in your god or is it anyone without a god? I'm going to proceed on the assumption that it is the former. We see atheists capable of rational thought time and again. Seems not to interfere with their thought processes. What about people of other religions? They too seem capable of making rational thought without god.

You didn't tell us what you'd expect to see as a result of an irrational mind. How else are we to judge that the godless are irrational in thought or not?

Lastly we see god's people acting irrationally all the time. What about those people that negligently kill their kids by denying medication for faith healing. This by all counts is irrational. What about speaking in tongues? You got grown people speaking babble and you saying this is the result of a rational mind? What about believing in a carpenter that walks on water with no contemporary accounts of these claims? Rational or irrational? That's right, it's irrational!

I have shown that god is not neccessary for rational thought. In fact the more likely consequence for belief in god is irrationality. Gods make men strap bombs on their chests in the Middle East, kidnap innocent girls in Nigeria, fly planes into buildings in New York and get people to oppress each other all over the world.

All Im saying is for you to explain rational thought in purely materialistic terms .

If you can't ,then that opens the possibility that there exists a reality beyond the physical.

you're overthinking this and getting too worked up over it.

Why, because you can't understand it?

You're attempting -- and failing miserably -- to equivocate between thoughts, for which there is substantial empirical evidence, with a deity for which by definition no empirical evidence is possible, and then pointing to that purported entity as the reason rational thought is possible.

You're skipping a metric tonne of steps along the way.

This is your argument:

p1 A cure for cancer is theoretically possible.
p2 No cure for cancer is currently known.
p3 If a cure is unknown, it is impossible.

c1 Cancer will never be curable.


p1 I can't figure out how rational thought is possible.
p2 I assume you also can't figure out how rational thought is possible.
p3 I need to know right now how rational thought is possible, so I'm going to fabricate an explanation.

c1 The Lucky Charms leprechaun makes marshmallows magically delicious; and also makes rational thought possible.