Kalam-esque not Kalam-lite, Argument from Kalam or AfK I guess
Changes nothing. Calling it "kalam-esque" is just as ignorant as calling it "kalam-lite".
And that animal that can recognize fire as an expectation of smoke has higher computational abilities, a function of the physical brains architecture.
I've already explained why defining rationality as "higher computational abilities" doesn't work: because by that definition of rationality, a non-rational creature could be considered rational.
Making a rock rational? Inconsistent with experience for sure and with no explanation or mechanism, basically magic.
I agree that it's inconsistent with experience, but that doesn't mean it's metaphysically impossible. If you think it is, explain how. If you don't, then your 'objection' is a quibble.
Yes the grounds for our brains higher computational ability are material,
You're a little confused. Grounds are premises e.g. "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal." These are the grounds for your belief that Socrates is mortal. They are not material.
"Events"... I'm guessing your definition will be more word play :
No word play. Are you denying that when you make a rational inference, a change from one physical state to another occurs inside your brain? In fact, isn't this premise essential to your whole argument? The change from one physical state to another is an event.
Events exist
Naturalism doesn't produce events
Therefore god exists
This is a straw man. I have not made such an argument. IIRC I've actually said that the idea of nature being the IF is not (at least as far as I can tell) incoherent, as long as no rational inference would ever occur.
Just like:
Actions exist
Naturalism produces reactions not actions
Therefore god exists
How is this word games? Are you claiming that when the doctor taps your knee and you kick, you're
acting? That, as far as I'm concerned, is
reacting, and there's a fundamental difference between those kinds of behaviors and purposive behavior. You haven't explained how the idea of actions emerging from reactions is coherent.
And:
Rationality exists
Naturalism is irrational
Therefore god exists
Naturalism is an irrational belief, but nature itself is not irrational -- it's nonrational. It would be more accurate for you to say "Naturalism is irrational" as a conclusion, rather make it the second premise. I haven't used "Naturalism is irrational" as a presumption. It's something I've deduced.
"Rational Inferences" "Actions" and I'm guessing "Events" are just terms where you've made up the definition to fit your narrative.
Then you have guessed wrong.
You've "deduced" it by loading your definitions. It seems like you're really trying to define god into existence by using axioms that no one really agrees with and already assumes your conclusion.
I think you're making a false accusation. Rational creatures need to interact with natural causation to do things, including to think, but for our rationality to come from nonrational causation is, I think, impossible. Unlike a soul, a brain is physical, and since a brain is physical, if naturalism is true, all caused mental events must have only and ultimately nonrational causes. Theism on the other hand allows for nonrational causation to gives us shape (literally and figuratively) for our rational actions, with inferences being a key rational action. Nonrational causes by themselves cannot produce rationality nor (consequently) rational effects, much less produce rational causes. Nonrational causes cannot produce rationality at all. But they can and do help in producing our thinking. Rational behavior has the power to cause physical events. Premises are a product of rational behavior, too, but a sort of abstract derivation from rational action. Reason can cause physical events shaped both physically and abstractly by reason's knowledge of premises.