Rationalism
Definition
Rationalism describes any philosophy that claims that beliefs and opinions should always be logical, deductive conclusions rather than being based on experience, observations, religious teachings, or divine revelation.
Keywords: Rationalism, Philosophy, Logical, Reasoning, Deductive, Experience, Observations, Religious, Revelation, Contradictory.
Veracity
Rationalistic claims are false .
Proof
All self-refuting or contradictory claims are deductively false.
Premise 1: Only deductive conclusions should be believed.
Premise 2: Premise 1, being the foundation or starting point of the philosophy, is not itself a deductive conclusion.
Conclusion: Therefore, premise 1, also known as "rationalism", should not be believed.
Rationalistic claims, when adhered to, require the rejection of rationalistic claims. To accept them is to reject them, making rationalism inherently contradictory and deductively false.
Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons
Riveting, yet absurd; romantic, yet innocent; Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons is a little Roald Dahl, a little Harry Potter, and a little Chronicles of Narnia, all rolled into one. Timothy McCabe collaborates with the great Benedict Ballyhoot to bring you the novel of the century!
In Printed Form
Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.
Other Writings
"Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com claims that there is no record of a mass Exodus of Jewish slaves out of Egypt. Is this true?"
No. This is not even remotely the case. This would be true only if we were to throw out all record that we have of the exodus of Jews from Egypt, as Brian Dunning seems to do. Let's take a look at some of his outrageous claims. The statement in question comes from an essay on skeptoid.com entitled "Did Jewish Slaves Build the Pyramids?" PRESUPPOSITIONS Mr.
Continue reading...
"Why do seemingly logical individuals arrive at such differing conclusions regarding existence, all the while maintaining that logic allows nothing else? Is the same information being evaluated? Is the same definition of logic being considered? "
Romans 1:18-20 (NASB): For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Continue reading...
"If God condemned people to Hell because of free will, yet He wanted to save them, would that mean He isn't capable of saving them?"
If "free will" means that the activities of the human will are not in any way caused by the God who created the humans, then humans do not have free will. The idea of a God who causes people to exist, which people then in turn cause events to occur, and said events are not in any way caused by the aforementioned God, is completely incoherent. I cannot answer the question, because as I understand it, it is meaningless.
Continue reading...