Rather than me not understanding rationality, you don't seem to understand science.
Believing in something that has no empirical evidence for it is irrational, and your made up definitions aren't going to change anyone's minds.
Your nonsensical remarks haven't escaped my attention in the past, but you've excelled yourself here. I stand by what I said, rationality cannot address the how and why of the whole, all it can do is expand the known territory of the whole, and then only provisionally, pending a better explanation. Unless you want to credit Stephen Hawking with some "breakthrough" insight, such as his assertion that the laws of physics allow the known universe to arise spontaneously, which I am quite happy with, if the question of how the laws of physics arose gets answered ! The answer is we don't know, and cannot know using the faculty of rational thinking. This is the brick wall telling us this is where we reach the limits of science, unless you want to keep belting your head against said brick wall. It is clear to me that Science and Rational Thinking are to many people today, what God and Holy Writ were to the masses in the past, sanctified as beyond criticism. Both have claimed plentiful victims. The mania that insists that if science can't address it, it is non-existent, is quite simply "faith", not fact.