the Website of Timothy McCabe Follower of Christ; Student of Epistemology, Apologetics, and Theology
Home Good News Proofs Questions Presentations Software More

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

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!

 

World Religions and Cults (volume 2)

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

"If God said "Thou shalt not kill" then why did he flood the whole world leaving only Noah and his family alive, and how is the destruction of Sodom justified (killing people for engaging in "immoral" sex), is God exempted from morality?"

If you have small children, you may have told them that they are not allowed to answer the door, or to talk to strangers. Since they are your children, it is morally wrong for them to disobey you, at least in any circumstance where your commands do not go directly against God's commands (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20). This means that it would be morally wrong for your children to answer the door, or to talk to strangers, because in so doing, they would be disobeying you.
Continue reading...

"In Romans 1:23, God clearly says "you have brought down the image of the uncorruptible God to corruptible man". How then can you call Jesus God?"

This question is a continuation of an earlier question, linked to at the bottom of my answer. The question was asked in several parts, so I have compiled all of the questions together here, and will answer them all at once. In full, the questioner asks: "You mentioned that Jesus has two seperate identities. How? Did not Jesus say that he was 'the son of man'?
Continue reading...

"Would it be immoral NOT to kill a baby if god commanded it?"

Certainly. To anyone who would say otherwise, I would like to ask who exactly do you say defined our moral obligations? Who issued the moral commands that you feel we ought to obey? Did you? Or did someone else? If you did, why would you think they would apply to me? You didn't create me. Why would you think they would apply to all babies? You didn't create all babies either. If someone else did, did this other person create me? Did this other person create babies?
Continue reading...

All articles