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

"Would it be immoral NOT to kill a baby if god commanded it?"

Certainly. To anyone who would say otherwise, I would like to ask who exactly do you say defined our moral obligations? Who issued the moral commands that you feel we ought to obey? Did you? Or did someone else? If you did, why would you think they would apply to me? You didn't create me. Why would you think they would apply to all babies? You didn't create all babies either. If someone else did, did this other person create me? Did this other person create babies?
Continue reading...

"In Romans 1:22-27 especially verse 25, it says the punishment God gave for turning his incorruptible image into the image of corruptible man. If your bible says this why do so many christians say Jesus is 'god incarnate' or even 'son of god"

Jesus is one person with two natures. One of His natures is divine (God) and the other is human (man). His God-nature is not His man-nature, and likewise, His man-nature is not His God-nature. They are distinct. Thus, Christians correctly refer to Jesus as both "God" and also as "man", all the while NEVER referring to God as man or man as God. This may sound confusing, but it really is not when put into perspective. Take the following analogy...
Continue reading...

"How can man be blamed for his inbred sin when he did not ask to be born or even exist?"

Think about your favorite fictional book, or your favorite movie. If you're anything like me, your favorite story probably has a bad guy in it. The bad guy does bad things. And if the story is any good, then at the end of it, the villain either gets thrown in prison, or he's killed by the good guys, or else he turns away from his bad behavior and becomes good.
Continue reading...

All articles