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 there is a God, but there is no evidence to be found for his existence except subjective experiences, is it not reasonable to assume that if he does exist, he does not want us to know about it?"

The conclusion does not seem reasonable to me. First, the premise is very unclear, and I will explain what I mean. Second, in the only way I can see that the premise could be considered true, the conclusion does not seem to be reasonably based on it. AN UNCLEAR PREMISE First, the premise seems unclear in that it seems to suggest that evidence is the only way to justifiably be convinced of something. But note that rational thought cannot exist without reason behind it.
Continue reading...

"Why did your omniscient and omnipotent god think it was a good idea to use a BOOK to relay his vitally important message to mankind?"

Interestingly enough, the book of Romans informs us that all we need to know about God has been revealed to us individually as part of our created essence, or nature, or being. Romans 1:18-20 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.
Continue reading...

"In Romans 1:22-27 especially verse 25, it condemns those who turn God's incorruptible image into the image of corruptible man. Why then do so many Christians say Jesus is 'god incarnate' or even 'son of god'?"

Jesus is one person with two natures. One of His natures is divine (God) and the other is human (man). His God-nature is not His man-nature, and likewise, His man-nature is not His God-nature. They are distinct. Thus, Christians correctly refer to Jesus as both "God" and also as "man", all the while NEVER referring to God as man or man as God. This may sound confusing, but it really is not when put into perspective. Take the following analogy...
Continue reading...

All articles