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
"William Lane Craig offers 5 arguments against divine determinism at reasonablefaith.org in an article called "Troubled by Calvinists". Do you agree?"
Dr. William Lane Craig is an astounding debater and an extremely intelligent individual. He has many excellent arguments with regard to many things. These arguments, however, are not among them. The question of free will is one that has been thoroughly debated for thousands of years. Some would say that free will can be defined as "the ability to do what you want".
Continue reading...
"What is an easy way to demonstrate that open theism is false?"
Open theism is the belief that god exists, but does not know the future outcomes of human choices. Instead, he finds out about them when they happen. Open theism renders all human conclusions completely irrational. A god who does not know what the future holds clearly did not design the future. And if he did not design the future, then there is no good reason to believe that it must behave in the way he wants it to behave.
Continue reading...
"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...