Rationalism versus Empiricism

Why Rationalism is the way to go.
This video consists of two examples for each epistemologic processes. The "someone goes behind the wall" is a classic example when explaining rationalism and empiricism. The cliff example is conjecture based solely on how these two epistemologists act (not think) in the wall example: the empiricist goes after, while the rationalist stays still.
This is a joke.

[@jovanespejel836]

This is extremely stupid. The empiricist don't need to experience the same thing over and over again to know is a fact. Empiricism is about learning via experience and after that we can make predictions about the physical world - that is intelligent practice.

[@mnamanm]

I know I'm half a dozen of years late but you should read the description

[@MaximilienDanton]

This video is kinda silly, you can have both. In the first instance, the little girl would say "I suspect he is around the corner, let me check". The rationalist could be wrong. The person could have left in a car already, so saying that the person is there would be an assumption. In the second instance, the little girl would say "I think he is dead, let me check" and proceed to walk down to check. If the poor bloke is lying there still alive she could save him, but apparently from the rationalist perspective it is okay to assume that he is dead.

[@phlewis86]

I like this video because it opens up the possiblity for a lively discussion. I think that most of us are a combination of empiricist and rationalist. We get raw material from our senses but we must combine that with the reasoning powers of our minds to make sense of things in a meanful way.

[@0HI0STATE18]

Wow, I regret giving this video a view.

[@invader_britt]

Such a bias explanation.

[@elunico13]

Objection to Kant "We can never know if our ideas about the world are true." You have said you can only know things are probably true. The vicious circle you're faced with is you assume your senses and reason are valid in their interpretation of evidence and the conclusions of others, by using your senses and reason. Therefore, you can't account for knowledge to any degree of certainty according to your worldview. Technically the debate is over since knowledge is a requirement to debate.

[@andyx1205]

Empiricism is important in Science. Many skeptics, such as the philosopher David Hume, were empiricists. It's best to have a mix of both rationalism and empiricism however, as inductive reasoning is not always 100% accurate. Quantum mechanics, for example, refutes pure rationalism.

[@JWonn]

So in short, it doesn't require it. Studying is possible, with or without divine ordinance. And it's study (finding evidence) that allows us to differentiate truth from non-truth.

[@JWonn]

[cont'd again] So you can see, your position doesn't preclude itself from the very problems you claim of others. But these problems can be dealt with easily. Truth leaves a trail of bread crumbs, breadcrumbs we call "evidence". Evidence is an indicator of truth, the greater the evidence the more probably true some belief is. This is what math, science, and history are all about: finding evidence. This is what rational people use to determine the veracity of beliefs, and knowledge.

[@AsloAso]

I like this because I am a Empiricist :). The last part with empiricism was wrong, due that we question the subject/object before we try the experience of it. Don't judge me.

[@elunico13]

Kant himself said "We can never know if our ideas about the world are true." You yourself have said you can only know things are probably true. The vicious circle you're faced with is you assume your senses and reason are valid in their interpretation of evidence and the conclusions of others, by using your senses and reason. You can't account for any knowledge to any degree according to your worldview. Technically the debate is over since knowledge is a requirement to continue.

[@JWonn]

I think the thing to be learned is that we all use both empiricism AND rationalism to some degree.

[@danielkyleh]

"you had better not be an empiricist."- yeah, that's just the type of reasoning a rationalist would employ. As an empiricist, I can say that based on this experience.

[@JWonn]

The mental faculties are not entirely shutdown, even when EEG shows no neural activity, these faculties continue but on a level that the EEG cannot measure (but other medical instruments can). If what you say were true, then there would be no reason to put in earplugs in the first place. Nor am I aware of ear plugs being used for such procedures. But as I said before we have only these anecdotes to go by, which are demonstrably unreliable.

[@b8sam6cash]

Actually, from an epistemological sense, the difference is based on innate knowledge. Empiricists say that all of what we can call knowledge must be gained through experience and reflection on that experience. Rationalists claim that we come to reflect on knowledge we already have at some point in our lives. At least that is the traditional debate between British Empiricism with John Locke versus Rationalism with Gottfried Leibniz. Neither argument works without the metaphysicals they create.

[@elunico13]

I never received notification of this message. It was marked spam. Appealing to Immanuel Kant's school of thought on epistemology does not get you out of the vicious circular argument on the interpretation of evidence. The vicious circle you're faced with is you assume your senses and reason are valid in their interpretation of evidence and the conclusions of others, by using your senses and reason. I know you don't deny this, because I've explained it since the first interaction we had.

[@elunico13]

(1a) Rationalism is self refuting. You would have to be irrational to attempt it's validity. E.g. "I reason that my reasoning is valid." This is an arbitrary circle of reasoning and is one form of irrationality. - I know our reasoning is valid because we're created in the image of God who is omniscient and provides an unchanging universal standard of reasoning. - God’s Word versus man’s arbitrary opinion (rationalism, empiricism, naturalism) God's word, the Bible, accounts for truth!

[@JWonn]

'In order to know anything is true one must be omniscient OR have revelation from someone who is.' According to this, anything that is not direct revelation cannot be known to be true. This statement falls on it's face. For if this were actually the case, that which is self-evidently true such as '2+2=4', could not be known to be true as they are not part of any divine revelation, but furthermore you could never know if the revelation itself is true without invoking circular reason.

[@b8sam6cash]

That's not what empiricists say. An empiricist would claim there was no man if he was behind the wall from the beginning and was never experienced. But as soon as some sensory evidence of the man is passively received (whether we see him or hear him), we then start reasoning to the conclusion that there is a man there.

[@shishkabobby]

When you are young, peek-a-boo is a game of endless fascination. Why is that? Perhaps because we are gaining the the empirical evidence to know that un-sensed does not equate to not-existent. If you think it is this simple, and that Descartes and Locke are simply fools, then you do not understand the issue.

[@mandar13579]

@NsNBobbysto i agree with you on the point that 'exploiting empiricism too far as the empiricism wouldn't jump off a cliff to validate what happened to Mr X...'.

[@TheSirPrise]

You're right, we do live in a world of infinite possibilities, be we never encounter any of these infinite possibilities in our everyday life do we? The man behind a wall is simply a man behind a wall, I needn't look at him to confirm this because I know that there's a solid 99% chance that I'm right and that's all the confirmation I need. Nothing in this world can be 100% certain, but that doesn't mean we can't conclude anything.

[@TheSirPrise]

Until a teleporter has been invented then that case cannot be made.

[@Adeikov]

Empiricism: sensory data; rationalism: inference based on learning from sensory data; abstractions are mental extensions of sensory data. Therefore empiricism is king.

[@avilesnba]

@averynic yeah but what the video is stating is not the part in which one has already gained experience, but the beginning of both sides. An empiricist does not know what is death and to experience it he jumps off the cliff resulting in his death while the rationalist just hypothesizes what happens. Im not taking a side, but im just simplifying what the video is trying to say. Like others have stated we are a mix of both and that is why we are so successful as a species

[@TheyDubMeAlex]

I don't see why anyone would oppose a view, this isn't politics. I could make rationalists seem ridiculous as well, while actually being accurate. [Mr. X walks behind a wall] Rationalist: "I don't know if that man exists because my senses are fallible, I can't know he's behind the wall because there might not be a wall, I only know I exist." Empiricist: "I see that man walked behind the wall, I know humans cannot spontaneously disappear, therefore the man must be behind the wall"

[@JWonn]

The empiricist in your example is using reason (and not empiricism) to come to his conclusion.

[@marleyman14]

You are getting confused about the ideals of rationlism, rationsim states that we have innate priori knowledge, which allows us to reason, empircims states that the only form of knowledge if through sense experience, any type of philosphy but empricism would agree that the man is still behind the wall.

[@Narfanator]

I had this whole rant about how your video doesn't make a lot of sense...but then I thought...you're kinda right...and kinda wrong... I think I just became a Logical Positivist

[@JWonn]

Your sarcasm is noted. I can point you in the right direction if you are so inclined. But you're asking questions as if there weren't already well established answers to those questions in academic literature.

[@number8381]

Im sure the empiricist, upon walking to the edge and looking over,would of walked down the slope and 'tested' to if his theory of what had happened???

[@JWonn]

[cont'd] ...They may not be completely false accounts but they may not be entirely true either. When certain events or implications fascinate/interest us we have a proclivity as human beings to seek details that would make the story more significant. Sometimes we even unknowingly fabricate or exaggerate certain details. I can only guess as to what actually happened, but I would guess that the continuation of the senses unconsciously collected information while experiencing an NDE: sound, touch.

[@lamp779]

I have spoken to many scientist and they tell me that their work is guided by both rationalism and empiricism. They don’t need to be opposing ways of thinking.

[@RowenaReena]

lol, very amusing, but I dont think it'll help with my philosophy exam tomorrow :P

[@JWonn]

So let me summarize the discussion so far: Elunico13 claims that we can only know if information is true if it is divinely revealed. I rebuke this claim by pointing out the sheer volume of very reliable information that man has discovered. Elunico13 broadens his definition of "divine revelation" to include anything man has discovered through study, which is to say it includes any and all information we have even the slightest reason to believe is true. The claim is then pointless.

[@xHabsFan10x]

for the first scneario it would be more reasonably that the empiricist says, "by experiencing the sight of him going behide the wall, I concluide fe is behind the wall." second scenario, empiricist would just walk down and see if the guy is dead. by experiencing the sight of a man jumping off a cliff and finding him dead, he concludes that jumping off the cliff killed him

[@JWonn]

Ok, thanks for your succinct answer. Next question: what contradiction would you be referring to?

[@olsome2]

i have a theory that says, in this case, empiricism comes before rationalism. In the empiricist's case, he sees (or experiences) the person going behind the wall. well, he could have used the rationality he gained from experiencing the person before they went behind the wall to deduce that is where the person went. Ergo, knowledge comes from experience, thus making empiricism triumphant

[@sauroman1]

What about people who experience NDE describing in detail operation or seeing what is in another room?

[@JWonn]

And yet your previous statement, current claim modification notwithstanding, was that in order to know something true, it must be divinely revealed to us. Mathematics regardless of it's epistemological origin was not divinely revealed.

[@JWonn]

"...The means of studying.." And that requires divine revelation, how exactly?

[@elunico13]

The knowledge we have from God allows us to understand absolute laws of mathematics. He is also the necessary foundation for mathematics. You have no justification that mathematics is absolute throughout time without him, much less how you can prove the reliability of your memory is even valid. The vicious circle doesnt go away. Gods revelation is necessary in order to know anything is true. That is how it is proven. It is a virtuous circle and can always be proven true based on the bible

[@JWonn]

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. Some of the greatest minds in history have been tackling these issues for thousands of years. Resolving these questions and providing various frameworks for justified belief. I don't have the time nor patience to educate you on all these matters, but the answers are out there if you're not afraid to broaden your horizon and not afraid to challenge long-held beliefs do some research... [continued]

[@Adeikov]

RATIONALISM "Philos. The doctrine or theory that emphasizes the role of reason in knowledge, or claims that reason rather than sense experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Freq. contrasted with empiricism. Cf. sensationalism n." SENSATIONALISM "Philos. The theory that sensation is the only source of knowledge." EMPIRICISM "Philos. The doctrine which regards experience as the only source of knowledge." (src: OED)

[@elunico13]

God ordains the means to the end, not just the end. I found it very interesting when I learned this in scripture. A simple illustration is this... If God knows that I'm going to have a full stomach, then why eat? If he knows it's going to happen, then it will, right? Of course, but he has ordained the means of me eating so that my stomach will be full. A very simple illustration. Same thing with studying. If God knows he is going to reveal his truth through the Bible, then why read it?

[@Adeikov]

Also try this on for size: PERCEPTIONISM "Philos. rare. The theory that all knowledge derives ultimately from sense-perception. Also: the theory that everything can be explained by human perceptions of reality rather than by external reality."

[@JWonn]

These sort of anecdotal accounts are difficult to cooperate or verify, sometimes details are added or expanded during their retelling so it's difficult to know how accurate the the retelling is to the original. When witnesses speak to each-other about them the accounts are no longer independent. But taken at face value some of these can be explained rationally. The senses may not be completely kaput when NDEs occur, we may still be capable of our sensory faculties...[continued]

[@JWonn]

"Nice. This is why all secular theories of morality can be refuted and are not a standard at all. Kant's theory of epistemology makes it impossible to know anything (morality) true about the world, according to your worldview." For the apparent fact that you say so. No don't bother presenting evidence or argument. You said it, so it must be true. "You are choosing Kant's ideas and your finite mind over God's omniscience and benevolence." What do we know of God that isn't written by man?

[@elunico13]

You've been enlightened many times in the exact same way. Apparently it doesn't bother you to contradict your own worldview. Another problem with your worldview is that even giving you the answer to any question won't help you, because you could never appeal to your beliefs in order to know that the answer I gave is true. "What do we know about God that is not written?" I never read nor was foretold in anyway that God would have me reveal that I trust in him, to you.

[@Elex127]

We cannot know if Mr X is behind the wall or really dead, if we don't check it. Possibilities other than those rationalist in the vid came up with exist. Funny vid though.

[@Adeikov]

Reason is next to useless and meaningless without an object of observation.

[@elunico13]

You can't make sense out of one thought in your mind without a biblical worldview. Your ability to do math is one example. How do you know that you're memory is reliable for recalling anything, including mathematics?

[@JWonn]

The vicious circle you're talking about, having to justify your reasons with reason, and then justifying those reasons and so on IS infinite Regress. As Descartes discovered long ago, infinite regress is a tax every argument must pay. It is only a problem insofar as absolute knowledge is rendered unattainable, this hurts your argument moreso than it does mine.

[@elunico13]

///So in short, it doesn't require it. Studying is possible, with or without divine ordinance/// I didn't know I actually had to finish the second illustration entirely. If God knows he is going to reveal his truth through the Bible, then why read it? Because he has ordained my reading it to learn of truth in that way. ///study (finding evidence) that allows us to differentiate truth from non-truth./// According to a biblical worldview, not yours (vicious circle), this is one of the ways

[@naturallaw1733]

Ha good one! =)) I see a lot of people here missed your point. To be a Rationalist, you already question everything enough. These other views that people have tend to question things TOO MUCH sometimes and therefore can become Irational to me. OverThinking things can be interesting at times but is usually unnecessary.

[@JWonn]

Well hold on there we still haven't settled my first contention, If you believe that something must be divinely revealed to know of it's truth, then everything that was not part of divine revelation is uncertain including math. Math was not divinely revealed. Correct?

[@JWonn]

Absolute knowledge is impossible, for our minds are finite. I have accepted this fact as any rational person inevitably must. The unattainability of absolute knowledge is why skepticism and critical thinking are so important. However we can can know that certain claims are probably true and others probably untrue with a degree of accuracy. So the question is: are your beliefs closer to truth or untruth?

[@elunico13]

YOU COMPLETELY AVOIDED THIS POST ///Your argument necessarily rests upon a fallacy/// Now you're contradicting yourself by appealing to absolute laws of logic. ///Our minds are finite and fallible, rendering absolute knowledge out of our reach/// You make this absolute statement as if you could ever know it absolutely. It is impossible for you to know that. ///However we needn't have absolute certainty to have knowledge in some things/// Are you absolutely certain about that???

[@sauroman1]

There was one interesting case of NDE patient who had brain operation and it was required to stop all metabolic activity so no mental processes could work if mind is just in the brain. Plus ears were with plugs and eyes closed. Yet woman could describe what tools were used and what doctors did say.

[@JWonn]

"Apparently it doesn't bother you to contradict your own worldview." You keep repeating this, and so far as yet I have not seen anything that would indicate a contradiction in my worldview, if you even know what my worldview is which I highly doubt. So please explain what contradiction you would be referring to. "because you could never appeal to your beliefs in order to know that the answer I gave is true." No I'd be appealing to available evidence and/or logic to support my view.

[@JWonn]

Your argument here is that we must have either absolute knowledge or no knowledge at all. Your argument necessarily rests upon a fallacy. The False Dichotomy. Our minds are finite and fallible, rendering absolute knowledge out of our reach. There will always be some level of uncertainty for this reason. However we needn't have absolute certainty to have knowledge in some things. Defeasibility reasoning maintains that to count as knowledge there must be no known overriding facts.

[@JWonn]

"You can't make a knowledge claim that something is meaningless" I just did. "I appreciate that you finally told me you appeal to Kant's theory, but without God, you can't escape the vicious circle of reasoning." No, please enlighten me. Would you be referring to the problem of infinite regress?

[@JWonn]

"It's a moral issue, that's the real problem. Not an intellectual one." Morality follows intellect. Morality that cannot be justified intellectually is no morality at all. "Would you like to face the real issue you have against God?" Haha. Well, aren't you presumptuous? I have no "issue against God". I understand religion as a social construct. Every society on earth has it's own collection of stories, traditions and values. In pre-scientific cultures these became religions.

[@mandar13579]

This video has not put forth a philosophically correct picture of Rationalism and Empiricism. So better to enjoy it just as an attempt to joke. And there is a difference between 'Rationality' / being Rational' as a quality used in Philosophy,Sciences etc. and the philosophical school called 'Rationalism' / being a 'Rationalist'.

[@JWonn]

Also, you didn't answer my question. Are you referring to the problem of infinite regress? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[@teamjaserin]

Object permanence is not dismissed by Empiricists... Observation and experience simply are given more weight than deductive thought. This is wrong and ultimately misleading to anyone trying to ascertain a deeper understanding of the two.

[@JWonn]

"The bible doesn't claim the wisdom of men is truth" I never said it did. However the bible was written by men. Undeniably men are sometimes correct, and there are very good ways to know when they are correct and when they are incorrect. No rational person can deny this. If someone claims the moon is made of cheese, we aren't forever doomed to uncertainty, nor do we need to wait for God to tell us this claim is untrue to know with certainty that the moon is in fact not made of cheese.

[@JWonn]

So you've jumped from epistemology to ethics?

[@JWonn]

All of the objections you raise have already been addressed by philosophers. Read Karl Popper's approach to the problem of infinite regress. I don't know how I'm supposed to argue with someone who lacks adequate knowledge on the subject matter.

[@JWonn]

I'm not by any means "at the top". This is rudimentary epistemology. Something I would expect someone to have some grasp of before delving into an epistemology debate. It's like I'm arguing algebra with someone who only knows arithmetic. It just doesn't work. He needs to do his homework in a subject area before providing opinions for said subject area.

[@TheSirPrise]

If Rationalism is dogmatic then Empiricism is a waste of time, why bother to prove something that we already know to be true? It's useful only in rare circumstances like I said before, but in the everyday life of science, math and even ordinary people rationalism is the dominant and more worth while philosophy. Empiricism has its moments, but that's it.

[@elunico13]

///we aren't forever doomed to uncertainty, nor do we need to wait for God to tell us this claim is untrue to know with certainty that the moon is in fact not made of cheese// It's impossible for you to have an avenue to certainty of true knowledge to any degree according to your method of determining truth w/o the biblical God The vicious circle is you assume your senses and reason are valid in their interpretation of evidence and the conclusions of others, by using your senses and reason.

[@Krshwunk]

I liked the part when he fell off the cliff.

[@elunico13]

Did you miss this post??? ///Your argument necessarily rests upon a fallacy/// Now you're contradicting yourself by appealing to absolute laws of logic. ///Our minds are finite and fallible, rendering absolute knowledge out of our reach/// Yet you make this absolute statement as if you could ever know it. Without knowledge it is impossible (absolutely) for you to make this claim. ///However we needn't have absolute certainty to have knowledge in some things/// Are you absolutely certain?

[@elunico13]

Ecc 8:17 I realized that NO ONE CAN DISCOVER EVERYTHING God is doing under the sun. Not even the wisest people discover everything, no matter what they claim. Any knowledge discovered can only come from the source of all knowledge. You aren't discovering truth God didn't give. Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge. You can't prove that finite minds are the source of truth. what is truth w/o the biblical God???

[@Achilles94627]

I'm not sure that really demonstrates the difference between rationalism and empiricism.... But it was entertaining to watch nevertheless!

[@JWonn]

[cont'd] As for knowledge from mankind, as it turns out most of what you believe about God comes from mankind. Christian theology has been shaped by clergy and aristocrats for over a millennium. The books that were to be included in the bible were decided by a vote of church leaders at Roman councils. The bible was not compiled into a single book until 367 AD, and many books were excluded...by a vote...of men. All of the biblical texts were themselves written by men. [Continued]

[@elunico13]

///Your argument necessarily rests upon a fallacy/// Now you're contradicting yourself by appealing to absolute laws of logic. ///Our minds are finite and fallible, rendering absolute knowledge out of our reach/// Yet you make this absolute statement as if you could ever know it. Without knowledge it is impossible (absolutely) for you to make this claim. ///However we needn't have absolute certainty to have knowledge in some things/// Are you absolutely certain?

[@elunico13]

///Based on this response I'm going to go out on a limb and say you didn't know what divine revelation was until I pointed it out./// The wikipedia version. Where's the wikipedia version of truth? How come you don't appeal to that? I know what revelation truth and knowledge are and their relationships according to scripture, not wikipedia. "I'm going to go out on a limb and say you didn't know what" revelation was until I pointed out to you with scripture.

[@elunico13]

///If you reject reason/// I can't reject reason since the Biblical God is the only foundation for it. In order to know anything is true one must be omniscient OR have revelation from someone who is. We can only reason because of our God given abilities to do so. If you reject God then your stuck in a vicious circle being unable to prove that your reasoning is valid. I don't reject reason, I reject the lack of epistemology that is rationalism w/o God. This idea rests on a logical fallacy.

[@JWonn]

However anything that is not direct communication from God to man, is not divine revelation, by definition.

[@officechairpotato]

@xHabsFan10x Or in addition to the first: "I can only be sure of my hypothesis by eliminating the assumption and making sure." Empiricists therefore would make less mistakes because of the compulsive need to verify it. The rationalist could be wrong about where the man is for instance, he could have left...somehow

[@jeviosoorishas181]

If epistemology had to with action and not how we know things, this might be funny.

[@elunico13]

///The greater the evidence the more probably true some belief is/// The vicious circle you're faced with is you assume your senses and reason are valid in their interpretation of evidence and the conclusions of others, by using your senses and reason. Oops! If interpretation of evidence only makes things probably true, then the interpretation is unknown to be true. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know??? According to your worldview, the answer honestly has to be YES.

[@JWonn]

Based on this response I'm going to go out on a limb and say you didn't know what divine revelation was until I pointed it out. I'm not trying to undermine your entire worldview, although I could do that, rather I am attempting to help you recognize the folly of your claim, a claim that even Christians can see is untenable. I can count on my left hand the number of times information has been divinely revealed to man, at least according to christian theology... [continued]

[@JWonn]

Your claim absolutely is meaningless. You started off with a bold claim, and then after my scrutiny of it's impracticality, you broadened the claim (to avoid falsification) to such an extent that it then included things that it was initially intended to exclude. Thus nullifying any ostensible usefulness your claim might have otherwise had. Your mind couldn't back up your mouth, is what happened.

[@JWonn]

[cont'd again] ...and even then how can you be certain God spoke to someone else? You'd simply have to take their word for it. And if your not too keen on just taking people's word for it when they claim God spoke to them, you'd be limited to only divine revelation that you have personally received. Which I'm guessing didn't include math and science lessons. So you might want to revise your claim so that you're not ignorant of 99.9% of everything mankind has ever learned.

[@JWonn]

And this proves math was divinely revealed, how? Even if true, these verses do nothing to support your claim. The first verse only speaks of the attributes of the Abrahamic God being revealed to man, and the second states that God posses all knowledge/wisdom. Even if it did state all knowledge was revealed it would be self-invalidating, as man has had to invent/discover a great many things over the centuries. To quote the bible as support of esotericism begs the question. ie.. it's fallacious

[@JWonn]

You do realize that the kind of solipsism you posit here would equally undermine your position as well, right? You assume the reliability of sense in your worldview as well. The reliability of the senses is a pre-requisite for rational thought. If you want to continue with irrational thought be my guest.

[@TheHippoly]

this is smart. NIce explanation

[@patriciomendez644]

" I don't know how I'm supposed to argue with someone who lacks adequate knowledge on the subject matter." uuuum I don't know.... teach him maybe? Is it lonely at the top?

[@elunico13]

///Absolute knowledge is impossible/// You are contradicting yourself by using absolute knowledge in order to say absolute knowledge is impossible. Since you can only know things to be probably true, you also contradict yourself that you know this as absolutely true (impossible). ///So the question is: are your beliefs closer to truth or untruth?/// You can't know either way. You can't know anything to be true in your worldview. You prove the biblical God with this objection.

[@JWonn]

"If you deny the certainty of God's revelation, then you must account for truth according to your worldview." And I have. I submit to Immanuel Kant's school of thought on epistemology. I highly recommend reading some of his work. "Is knowledge from mankind true?" Some of it, yes. "unable to account for truth without God. God is the only possibility to have true knowledge" Only someone entirely ignorant of epistemology would make such a puerile claim.

[@JWonn]

Wikipedia is simply a source. If you look it up in the dictionary it says precisely the same thing. thefreedictionary (dot) com / divine + revelation Even religious sources say as much. newadvent (dot) org / cathen / 13001a This is the established definition, and if you can find any authoritative source to contradict these definitions, I would be interested to see it.

[@Monadshavenowindows]

I'm a rationalist, and I do not approve this message!

[@elunico13]

///how can you be certain God spoke to someone else?/// If you deny the certainty of God's revelation, then you must account for truth according to your worldview. Try wiki. ///you might want to revise your claim so that you're not ignorant of 99.9% of everything mankind has ever learned./// Is knowledge from mankind true? The first post you never denied you'd be caught in a vicious circle, unable to account for truth without God. God is the only possibility to have true knowledge

[@elunico13]

///You've broadened your claim so much that it is now meaningless/// You can't make a knowledge claim that something is meaningless, when your worldview can't account for true knowledge. Making a claim to know something is a contradiction in your worldview. I appreciate that you finally told me you appeal to Kant's theory, but without God, you can't escape the vicious circle of reasoning. I know your are well aware of that by now.

[@JWonn]

You do realize that the kind of solipsism you posit here would equally undermine your position as well, right? You assume the reliability of sense in your worldview as well.

[@JWonn]

He doesn't, but they are very improbable.

[@InnerBushman]

Rationalism FTW ;] Nice one Gwaur! :P