3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)

[fr0d0]

Please provide examples to support your point. This is just rhetoric talk at this point.

A rationalist reasons something to be true, where an empiricist tests. A rationalist doesn't need to check if water is wet, an empiricist does.

Empiricism has to work on absolutes. No other information is acceptable apart what can be clearly proven. That's what empiricism is. Rationalism factors in more likely solutions, and can work with subjective information.

Given two possible solutions, the rationalist can consider both to be true, and adopt either, to reach a further conclusion. An empiricist would be restricted to an unresolved first step.

Rationalism is how Christianity works. Given the statement "there is a God", the rationalist can work from the unknowable premise. The empiricist can never do that. The empiricist demands fact first and refuses to entertain conjecture.