(June 18, 2014 at 5:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(June 17, 2014 at 10:22 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: How precisely does one gather information without using one's senses? It's my contention that rationalism and empiricism cannot stand alone - or at the very least, are weak when they do.
I'll also note that I've yet to see you put forth a sound rational argument for belief.
You're being facetious. Written information is transference of ideas rather than direct experience. It's 2nd hand information to be accepted or denied.
Claim: "God is"
Empiricist response: no empirical evidence
Rationalist response: consider evidence and weigh up possibilities.
The rationalist can accept the intellectual proposition given no empirical evidence. Because the evidence is logically consistent.
The empiricist cannot move past the fact that there cannot be independently verifiable evidence. He remains with a null answer.
Now you guys say that this isn't a rational explanation exactly because you are illogically married to the notion that there has to be some empirical evidence for any idea to have merit.
It's an explanation of the difference between rationalism and empiricism, yes. Thanks, I was aware of it already.
For the record, I *don't* hold the position that there must be empirical evidence - at least not for *your* belief to be justified to your satisfaction.
What I was asking for is to hear your explanation of the reasoning you used to arrive at your conclusions. As far as I'm aware, you've avoided doing so, and I'm curious why. I have no interest in dismantling your reasoning, as I have no interest in changing your mind or feeling intellectually superior.
Are you ever going to do so?
