Open Theism
Definition
Open theism refers to any philosophy which claims that there is a supreme creator of the universe who does not foreknow the outcome of human choices.
Keywords: Open Theism, Philosophies, Philosophy, Rational, Assumption, Contradiction, Reasoning, False, Deductive, Argument From Reason.
Veracity
Open-theistic 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 god of open theism is not the author of time.
Conclusion: Therefore, if the god of open theism 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 open theism, there can ultimately be no reason to hold to this assumption, making it an irrational assumption. This makes open theism 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 god of open theism did not design all present conditions.
Premise 1: Anything that does not foreknow all present conditions did not design all present conditions.
Premise 2: The god of open theism does not foreknow all present conditions.
Conclusion: Therefore, the god of open theism did not design all present conditions.
B. The god of open theism is not the rational author of the present.
Premise 1: Anything that did not design all present conditions is not the rational author of the present.
Premise 2: The god of open theism did not design all present conditions (from A above).
Conclusion: Therefore, the god of open theism is not the rational author of the present.
C. The god of open theism is not the rational author of time.
Premise 1: Anyone who is not the rational author of the present is not the rational author of time.
Premise 2: The god of open theism is not the rational author of the present (from B above).
Conclusion: Therefore, the god of open theism is not the rational author of time.
D. If open-theistic 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 god of open theism.
Premise 2: If open-theistic claims are true, the only god or gods are open theist gods.
Conclusion: Therefore, if open-theistic claims are true, there is no rational author of time.
E. If open-theistic 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 god of open theism.
Premise 2: If open-theistic claims are true, the only god or gods are open-theistic.
Conclusion: Therefore, if open-theistic claims are true, time itself is not capable of rational thought.
F. If open-theistic 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 open-theistic 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 open-theistic claims are true, no one can be rationally justified in having beliefs about time.
G. If open-theistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the future.
Premise 1: If open-theistic 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 open-theistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the future.
H. If open-theistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the present.
Premise 1: If open-theistic 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 open-theistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the present.
I. If open-theistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the past.
Premise 1: If open-theistic 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 open-theistic claims are true, humans are not rationally justified in drawing conclusions about things in the past.
J. If open-theistic 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 open-theistic 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 open-theistic claims are true, no human conclusions are rationally justified.
Humans assume that time, like everything else, is non-contradictory. Under open theism, there can ultimately be no reason to hold to this assumption, making it an irrational assumption.
This Argument from Reason demonstrates that open theism is deductively false.
Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons
Riveting, yet absurd; romantic, yet innocent; Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons is a little Roald Dahl, a little Harry Potter, and a little Chronicles of Narnia, all rolled into one. Timothy McCabe collaborates with the great Benedict Ballyhoot to bring you the novel of the century!
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
"Why does the bible, supposedly the perfect inerrant word of god, claim that bats are birds (Lev 11:13-19)."
Here are the relevant texts in the NASB: Leviticus 11:13-19 These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe,...
Continue reading...
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
This question has been around at least since Plato, and is known by the name of the "Euthyphro Dilemma". It's really nothing more than a silly trick question wearing a "deep" philosophical mask. If one were to go with the first option provided, it leads to the conclusion that God is subject to the authority of Objective Morality and is not actually able to do whatever He wants, making Him not really God.
Continue reading...
"If creation happened about 5000 years ago, then how come a supernova was seen in 1987, but it was located 170,000 lightyears away?"
The study of light and its speed is a complex undertaking that physicists have not even nearly completed. Does light travel at different fixed speeds in either direction of a round trip? Has its speed always been what it appears to be today? Can anything material travel faster than it? No physicist alive seems to know the answers to these questions for certain. But God does.
Continue reading...