WHAT "logical" argument?
You didn't even consider the logical argument. And "science" is not the ruler of all because philosophy comes before science. Without philosophy there is no science.
Why do you think something that came first is better? What came later is usually an improvement on what came before.
You cannot prove "bugs bunny" with the ontological proof for the simple reason that "bugs bunny" is not a necessary being.
Its necessary to some Point proven. Move on
And your tendency to put words in my mouth is very irritating, so please stop.
As I said already, rationalism does not equal atheism. Your tendency to conflate the two shows you know very little about philosophy.
I never said there was no atheism in ancient China. But before the modern era atheism was never a major influence. Do you dispute this? Chinese people have always venerated their ancestors and believed in the traditional religions. The fact that you now selectively focuses on the atheistic elements in ancient Chinese culture, which have never got anywhere near to being a major influence in history, shows that you've been influenced by the modern western atheist way of thinking.
Wrong again, but why doesn't that surprise me? Athiesm is actually quite a strong force doing the Han, there are a group of athiest scholars(most of whom are Bian Jia) that absolutely deny the existence of afterlife, They will go around proving their theories and thousands have been defeated by them in arguments.The Mie Shen Lun actually created such a rumour that the southern emperors had to sent him away to the borders.
Of course its not as influencial as today, so stop making up statements I didn't say again. So where have I "focuses on the atheistic elements in ancient Chinese culture"?
And what do you know about philosophy? LOL Confucianism isn't even a philosophy in the definition of Philosophy, its a teaching of moral codes.
You are wrong. Rationalism is much more than just science or empiricism. Your repeated tendency to conflate these concepts shows you know very little about philosophy.
So what if my claims are unempirical? Philosophically I am not an empiricist anyway, I am a rationalist.
If your definition of rationalism is superstition fine, but the scientists have a different definition than yours.
I alerady understand long before you did, or will from what you are drawn into. I critisize superstition, which is simply belief without evidence, that is irrational. You can make up your terms all you want, but let me tell you, philosophy aren't always rational.I say this again: Do not conflate rationalism with science/empircism/atheism. There is more to rationalism than that. Just because something is unempirical and unscientific does not mean it is irrational.
Just because something is unempirical does not mean it is irrational. When can you begin to understand this?
And I'll repreat it again, stop distorting my words. Antagonism isn't denying, its simply not accepting at face value, but give it the CHANCE that it could happen, a chance that has a probability of close to zero.
Because, again, beyond it there isn't another unifying law.
Neither is there something not beyond it because it is inclusive. If by your definition, a scientist also believes a ultimate reality, so does just about everyone except people such as Buddhists; this world.