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 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...

"Can you conceive of any specific thing that, if it happened, would cause you to change your position on the God issue? If so, what is it? If not, then why not?"

No. I could certainly modify my positions on specific minor issues if it were demonstrated to me that scripture, or plain logic not contradicting scripture, were opposed to my views. But that would be it. My worldview will not change because I know Jesus. When you know someone, you know that you know them. People can try their hardest to convince you that you don't, but you do. I know Christ and I recognize the work of the Holy Spirit in me (John 10:27, 14:26).
Continue reading...

"Does evolution (and with that, the evils that have occurred in the name of natural selection, prior to the fall of man) disprove the existence of God?"

In short, no. There is absolutely no evidence that evolution, in the sense in which this question is referring to it, has ever happened. Evidence of the lack of evidence includes the "theory" of Punctuated Equilibrium, developed by evolutionary paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. One of the celebrated functions of this theory is its demonstration of why, if evolution were actually true, there would be no fossil evidence for it.
Continue reading...

All articles