the Website of Timothy McCabe Follower of Christ; Student of Epistemology, Apologetics, and Theology
Home Philosophy & Proofs Questions Other Writings Presentations Software

Deism

Definition

Deism refers to any philosophy which claims that there is a supreme creator of the universe who has no ongoing involvement with what is created apart from the initial act of creation itself.

Keywords: Deism, Philosophies, Philosophy, Rational, Assumption, Contradiction, Reasoning, False, Deductive.

Veracity

Deistic claims are false .

Proof

Simplified

Humans assume that all contradictions are false. Any worldview that does not allow for this assumption to be rationally justified is deductively false.

Premise 1: If the author of our initial assumptions about time is not also the author of time, our assumptions about time are without reason.

Premise 2: The deistic god is not the author of time.

Conclusion: Therefore, if the deistic god is the author of our assumptions about time, our assumptions about time are without reason.

Humans assume that time, like everything else, is non-contradictory. Under deism, there can ultimately be no reason to hold to this assumption, making it an irrational assumption. This makes deism deductively false.

In depth

Humans assume that all contradictions are false. Any worldview that does not allow for this assumption to be rationally justified is deductively false.

A. The deist god is not the rational author of the present.

Premise 1: Anything not involved with the present is not the rational author of the present.

Premise 2: The deist god is not involved with the present.

Conclusion: Therefore, the deist god is not the rational author of the present.

B. The deist god is not the rational author of the future.

Premise 1: Anything not involved with the future is not the rational author of the future.

Premise 2: The deist god is not involved with the future.

Conclusion: Therefore, the deist god is not the rational author of the future.

C. The deist god is not the rational author of time.

Premise 1: Anyone who is not the rational author of the present or the rational author of the future is not the rational author of time.

Premise 2: The deist god is not the rational author of the present or the rational author of the future (from A, B above).

Conclusion: Therefore, the deist god is not the rational author of time.

D. If deistic claims are true, there is no rational author of time.

Premise 1: If there existed a rational author of time, it would be a god that is not the deist god.

Premise 2: If deistic claims are true, the only god or gods are deistic.

Conclusion: Therefore, if deistic claims are true, there is no rational author of time.

E. If deistic claims are true, time itself is not capable of rational thought.

Premise 1: If time itself were capable of rational thought, it would be a god other than the deist god.

Premise 2: If deistic claims are true, the only god or gods are deistic.

Conclusion: Therefore, if deistic claims are true, time itself is not capable of rational thought.

F. If deistic claims are true, no one can be rationally justified in having beliefs about time.

Premise 1: Any being not sovereign over [x] cannot be rationally justified in having beliefs about [x] without the non-contradictory nature of [x] being explicitly predefined by the rational author of [x], or without [x] itself being capable of rational thought.

Premise 2: If deistic claims are true, there is no rational author of time and time itself is not capable of rational thought (from D, E above).

Conclusion: Therefore, if deistic claims are true, no one can be rationally justified in having beliefs about time.

G. If deistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the future.

Premise 1: If deistic claims are true, no one can be rationally justified in having beliefs about time (from F above).

Premise 2: Having beliefs about time is necessary for humans to draw conclusions about things in the future.

Conclusion: Therefore, if deistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the future.

H. If deistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the present.

Premise 1: If deistic claims are true, no one can be rationally justified in having beliefs about time (from F above).

Premise 2: Having beliefs about time is necessary for humans to draw conclusions about things in the present.

Conclusion: Therefore, if deistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the present.

I. If deistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the past.

Premise 1: If deistic claims are true, no one can be rationally justified in having beliefs about time (from F above).

Premise 2: Having beliefs about time is necessary for humans to draw conclusions about things in the past.

Conclusion: Therefore, if deistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the past.

J. If deistic claims are true, no human conclusions are rationally justified.

Premise 1: All human conclusions are about things in the past, present, or future.

Premise 2: If deistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the past, present, or future (from G, H, I above).

Conclusion: Therefore, if deistic claims are true, no human conclusions are rationally justified.

Humans assume that time, like everything else, is non-contradictory. Under deism, there can ultimately be no reason to hold to this assumption, making it an irrational assumption. This makes deism deductively false.

World Religions and Cults (volume 2)

In Printed Form

Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.

Other Writings

New!

"If, as you claim, morality is obeying god, how do you know that obeying god is good? Isn't that totally circular?"

If morality is obeying god, then obeying god is morality. If we grant the former, then the latter follows by tautological necessity. Is it circular? Insofar as tautologies are circular, sure. Here is another circular tautology: If 2 + 2 = 4, then 4 = 2 + 2. Totally circular. Malachi 3:18; Romans 4:15, 5:13; 1 John 3:4.

"According to Christianity, do those of Jewish faith go to hell for not accepting that Jesus was the Son of God?"

Yes. Everyone has earned their place in hell, myself included (Romans 3:23, 6:23; Revelation 21:8). The only way that God has provided for us to get out of what we deserve is by trusting in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10; John 6:29). Everyone who denies Jesus their entire life is in turn denied by Jesus before His Father in heaven -- Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, etc (Matthew 10:33).

Monotheism is true: a simple proof

Monotheism refers to any philosophy which claims that there is only one supreme creator of the universe.

"There is a limit on the number of characters you can type, so sorry about that. For my first question you beautifully pointed it out yet missed it: Jesus says I have lost NONE and also(same context) lost ONE. Math contradiction, is it N/ONE?"

Thanks for the clarification. I understand your question now. The question is with regards to John 17:12 and John 18:9. In John 17:12, Jesus tells His Father that He lost one of those whom His Father gave to Him, namely, Judas Iscariot. In John 18:9, the author of John tells us that Jesus did not lose one. So which is it? One or none?

All articles