>>71297>It is a concern because we are told by conventional authorities we can discover the truth by using science when this is not the case for all things as I mentioned.
1. Why do you care what conventional authorities think?
2. Even if you did care about what conventional authorities think, those same conventional authorities will, for the most part, never claim that science can give you those answers. See vid related at the 14:53 minute mark. Feynman being an incredibly noteworthy individual in Quantum Mechanics, breaks down why reasoning doesn't present new presmises, it can only test existing ones against each other. Welcome to fundamental epistemology.
Fuck, it requires a leap of faith to even believe other minds exist. Go read a critique of pure reason by the Kant goblin. Reasoning can not take anything A-priori which is what you are looking for.>Why must the only way to explain that which cannot be explained using reason alone be theistic theories?
Because you are unable to see the forest for the trees. Theological theory is the end result of a different thought system, not the thought system in and of itself. Your argument is tantamount to saying the Theory of Relativity encapsulates all of reasoning as opposed to being a result from it.>There could be an alternative system of thought as I mentioned yet to claim it is provable is unknown.
It's contradictory on a epistemological to derive a rational system to a non-rational system as they have a-priori standards for evidence and abstraction. If you just want to argue that something exists outside of reason (outside of observation or experience), then that already exists. I believe Kant would call it "Judgement", others would call it "Faith". It can not prove anything because it does not prove things in the way reasoning does, because by it's nature it is irrational. To want a system that can prove things, but is itself not rational, thus you are requesting something contradictory. Something that is not rational, but follows rational rules.
Now, if you are instead trying to explore the possibility of something that exists simultaneously outside rational reasoning and judgement/faith based methods of thought. Sure I guess, maybe it exists, but by the base principles you yourself have asserted, it will not be rational and thus can NOT prove things in a rational sense. You can't have your reasoning and eat it too.>Do you disagree that empirical thought is limited at truly explaining everything though? if so I would be curious to hear why.
I don't disagree, I agree to the point it's a settled issue. Anyone worth talking to about the subject is pretty clear about the limitations of reason. Hence me mentioning epistemological reasoning. Go read David Hume if you want clarification on how shaky human inference even is.