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
"Do we have free will? Please explain."
Free-will has been defined in several different ways. Some would say that free-will is "the ability to do what we want to do". Under this definition, it's clear that we do have free-will, as all of us (at least on occasion) do what we want. However, another definition of free-will is "the ability to choose, or to choose otherwise". Free-will by this definition has been the subject of debate for centuries. We should note that the issue is not "can we choose?
Continue reading...
"Are all presuppositions equally valid? If not, how does one determine which are more valid than others?"
Internal consistency is the most common method I know of for determining the truth value of presuppositions. The test of internal consistency is what presuppositional reasoning is all about. If, for example, a view presupposes "A" and "not-A" at the same time and in the same way, then, in that worldview, reasoning, knowledge, learning, meaning, morality, science, mathematics -- everything -- becomes utterly incoherent.
Continue reading...
"Your previous answer states that you agree that homosexual people should be executed. This conflicts with the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Justify this please."
Actually, my answer was that those who disobey God deserve to be executed, including myself. So, rephrasing your question slightly, how is it then that anyone "should" be executed when no one is allowed to kill? The short answer is that the prohibition against killing humans is a general rule or principle that holds for all humans and all animals (Genesis 9:5-6) unless God specifically commands otherwise.
Continue reading...