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

"How can chaos create order? That's impossible without intelligent direction. Atheism is emotional, not intellectual."

Precisely: atheism is emotional, not intellectual. Atheism denies any rational source for our intellect, thereby denying the rationality of rationality. It prohibits any possible reason for reasoning. It necessitates an absolute rejection of justified belief and thus, a rejection of intelligence altogether.

"Why does religion 'permit' murder and why are people so eager to justify murders their people commited?"

The dictionary defines murder as "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law". I will, throughout this answer, use this definition as what I am referring to when I use the word "murder", and I will assume that this is the definition in view by the questioner. When humans deny their Creator, the God of the Bible, there is no longer any objective moral authority, or highest moral law.

"Is rape acceptable or unacceptable in your worldview and why? What do your scriptures (if any) say?"

The God of the Bible condemns rape, and therefore, so do Christians. Beginning in the book of Genesis, we read about God's condemnation of rape: Genesis 34:2-7 (NASB) When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force. He was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, "Get me this young girl for a wife.

All articles