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, Argument From Reason.

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 Argument from Reason therefore demonstrates that deism is 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!

"Can non-Christian views be internally consistent?"

Non-Christian worldviews cannot be internally consistent. While the above statement is true, proving it is a different matter. However, its truth follows from the basics of the Christian faith. Since, in Christian theology, the Christian God is understood to be necessary, any deviation from that which is necessary would be impossible, entailing a logical contradiction.
Continue reading...

"Why Pray? If it changes God's mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change God's mind then it is pointless."

First of all, prayer is much more than just petitioning God or asking Him to do things. Instead, it is both an opportunity to build a relationship with the God of creation, and also an outpouring of that relationship. In Jesus's model prayer, known as the Lord's prayer, found in Matthew 6 and Luke 11, Jesus both begins and ends by praising the Father. He states His complete commitment to Him and dependence upon Him.
Continue reading...

Theism is true: a simple proof

Theism includes any philosophy which claims that some kind of God or gods exist.
Continue reading...

"What's the most attractive thing about your worldview? What sets it apart from the others?"

Only Christianity can provide a solution to the problem of sin. We know that we aren't perfect. We know that we should do better. We know that there is a perfect moral law that governs us, and we don't live up to it (Romans 3:23). Atheism denies all of these obvious facts. Other worldviews recognize them, but tell us that we must do better -- that we must be perfect -- that we must fix the problem of sin. Christianity alone tells us the obvious truth -- that we can't be perfect.
Continue reading...

All articles