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
"If creation happened about 5000 years ago, then how come a supernova was seen in 1987, but it was located 170,000 lightyears away?"
The study of light and its speed is a complex undertaking that physicists have not even nearly completed. Does light travel at different fixed speeds in either direction of a round trip? Has its speed always been what it appears to be today? Can anything material travel faster than it? No physicist alive seems to know the answers to these questions for certain. But God does.
Continue reading...
"Since there can be no evidence for something that can't be measured, is it at least fair to say that there is no empirical evidence for god, and therefore no reason to believe he exists?"
If there is no reason to believe something that can't be measured, why would anyone believe that "there is no reason to believe something that can't be measured"? This argument is self-defeating. If we accept it, we must apply it to itself. Once we apply it to itself, we see that it does not meet its own criteria. Then, we must reject it. In other words, if we accept your argument, we must reject your argument on its own terms. I hope this is clear. God bless.
Continue reading...
"Would you accept that, had you been born in Saudi Arabia, you would more than likely be defending the Quran and Allah with the same vehemence that you now defend Christ?"
Absolutely not: if I were born in Saudi Arabia, reality would be incoherent. The only things that can happen are the things God has willed to cause to happen. If these things did not happen, it would only be because God willed not to cause them to happen. God only causes that which He prefers to cause, so for Him to have caused other than what He has caused, He would have to prefer other than what He prefers. However, He is who He is, and He cannot deny Himself (Exodus 3:14; 2 Timothy 2:13).
Continue reading...