Alright /sci/, lets have a fruitful discussion.

The rational worldview claims that the world can be sufficiently recognized by means of scientific experiments. So far, so good, so true.

But the assertion of the rational worldview that there is no other world than the world that can be experienced and is sufficiently recognizable by the natural sciences is an additional premise that does not follow from the first premise of the recognizability of the world.

In this respect, is there not a stalemate between rational and theistic worldview? Both recognize the findings of the natural sciences. Both claim that our world can be sufficiently explained by them. And while the theistic worldview claims that there is a world not recognizable by the natural sciences, the rational worldview claims that there is no other world than the recognizable one. An ambiguity which, incidentally, any metaphysics must concede.

I could go on about how it's possible to philosophically found a theistic worldview that is more probable and plausible than a rational worldview, but that's out of scope for this discussion.

t. Scholar