Okay, so you would argue that basically, Theory Y above does not predict Observation B. That's fine. Would you mind illuminating to me your reasoning process for predicting a rational universe from a non-rational, non-intelligent, impersonal, naturalistic beginning?

We wouldn't expect rationality from a physical system inherently. For example, we wouldn't expect the paths carved out by a river to naturally form a simple addition circuit. When we find a physical circuit that performs an addition, we naturally infer a person built it. The "person building" theory predicts a logical circuit, but the natural movements of water do not predict that the river's paths will form any particular logic circuit.

Wow, there's a whole lot of stuff you've brought in there that I could pretty much spend the rest of my life talking about. To keep it useful though, I'm just going to stick to my original point.

I'm saying that if there is a personal, rational being that created the universe, we could reasonably predict the rationality of the world. But if there is no such being behind the universe, we have no reason to predict a rational universe. In fact, we'd probably predict the inability to predict anything.

What do we observe? A seemingly rational universe.

Theory X predicts Observation A, Theory Y predicts Observation B. A and B are mutually exclusive, A is observed.

This does not formally prove Theory X (because there may be alternate theories that also predict Observation A), but if each part of the section in italics holds, Theory Y cannot be true.

So, in your opinion, which part of the section in italics does not hold?

If you can't see the circular reasoning here, I'm afraid I probably can't help you. I'll break it down.

This is an axiom. A starting truth claim that the argument rests upon, so it must be shown to be valid if the argument itself is to be valid.

In order to make this statement, you must rely on the axiom that you are actually capable of doing empirical testing (i.e. that you have a logical brain, not an illogical one).

But you have invoked the logical nature of your brain, and your capability to do empirical testing, as the evidence for that same starting axiom you are trying to prove! And round and round we go.

Now don't misunderstand me, I am not trying to deny the obvious. I think it is obvious that your brain *is* logical and you *can* do empirical tests, but I am trying to get you to see that if you try to justify that belief with logic, starting from naturalistic axioms, you come up empty handed or chasing your own tail.

On the other hand, if you start from a super-naturalistic axiom, it is possible to justify this belief. For example, the axiom that there is a personal deity that made the universe, who is logical themselves. It would be reasonable to infer that the things this logical deity made would have a logical order to them (including our own minds). As I understand it, just this sort of reasoning was behind the birth of science in the western world.

I am perfectly aware that I hold a minority position on this point. I think its a perfectly rational position, but I don't for a second think that means everyone who looks at the evidence will agree ;) If only the world were that simple.

Ok, fair enough. If your brain is the result of a long process of evolution by random mutation and natural selection, what intrinsic reason is there to believe that you have evolved a logical brain rather than an illogical one? Maybe an illogical brain has some survival value we're just not completely aware of and none of your thought processes actually make sense.

However, if the reasoning process is rooted in a supernatural reality beyond mere matter and energy, then we would have some foundation upon which to rest the starting axiom that we are capable of rationality in the first place.

I'm inclined to disagree. Not interested in shifting topic of conversation, but my disagreement is part of a large coherent worldview.

What I was trying to get at was that the "supernatural" component, in the analogy of a logic circuit, is the humans who made them. There is nothing inherent in (at the "natural" level of) the circuit that means it must be functional/useful/logical. It is only so because of the mind (the "supernatural" component) behind it.

Try as you may, if you start by saying that the circuit is not man made, you will have a hard time justifying the belief that it consistently produces logical output. Conversely, if you thoroughly test the circuit and find that it does consistently produce logical output, you will find it very difficult to justify the belief that it is not man made.

I'm glad you asked, because I believe this question holds the answer to your others. Electrical circuits which process information manage to do so, only because they were engineered with this purpose in mind. They only function in a useful way because something of a qualitatively more advanced intelligence designed them. I find it reasonable to extrapolate this explanation of ordered electrical circuits up to an intelligence qualitatively beyond ourselves that explains our own mental "circuitry".

Specifically what problems do you feel that such an inference introduces?

You want to be careful with a statement like this, its easy to fall into the trap of a double standard. For example, problems with one theory equal missing pieces, but problems with a competing theory make it incorrect. Just a word of caution.

I find no way to deny the existence of at least *something* supernatural without throwing away all rationality with it. After all, if there is nothing but matter and energy, if nothing higher is behind my thoughts, why would I assume that the paths of electrons through my brain actually make real sense and lead to logical conclusions? What do you make of this question?

Dude, you seem so irratable :) I'll be honest, I'm a jaded ex-junky for internet arguments. From reading your sig, I expect a lot more bigotry than rationality from attempting to have a proper conversation with you. So I mock your ideas in a public forum, in order that others may read your responses and get a laugh out of them like I do.

When the guys at the Discovery institute can produce a list of hundreds of PhD scientists who signed their names on dissentfromdarwin.org, it's clearly *wrong* to claim that *all* doubters are "uninformed".

But inherent in that statement seems to be a denial of the validity of the question, lol.

If there is a lot of evidence in favour of life spontaneously arising, I would hardly call that "speculative". My understanding however is that there is a distinct absence of a viable theory for the arising of living from non-living material. It seems there are many theories, but each has its own share show-stopping problems.

And, the question must be raised, what would be admissable, "credible" evidence for the supernatural? For instance, a philosophical line of reasoning, leading to the conclusion that the supernatural, as a category, must necessarily exist? Would such a thing count, in your opinion, as evidence that the supernatural exists?

I would agree with that statement, however, that wasn't the question, lol. The question was not whether a purely scientific account of the origin of life is on equal footing with an account which mainly refers to the supernatural.

Rather, the question was whether the notion that life spontaneously arises and the notion that life exists as the result of a deity intervening are equally logical (since both are given the label "speculative").

Thank you for proving my point ;) </cheeky>

Despite the unfortunate tone of my first post, I'd be interested in what you think.

If we refer to the notion that life spontaneously arises as "speculative", is the notion that life exists as a result of some divine intervention speculative also? In the same sense? Meaning, are these two notions on equal footing with regard to their logical merit?

There. Fixed that for you ;)
Mods can have my karma if they want it, its still a purely religious assertion to say that life spontaneously arises. It's unobserved and there's good reason to believe its impossible (e.g. the chirality problem). We have a word for that where I come from, we call it unscientific.