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
"Hell seems designed to punish disobedience and perceived immorality. Would you agree that acting in a certain manner simply because you fear punishment is cowardly and an invalid motivator?"
The coward is the individual who, out of fear, refuses to do what is right. A coward is NOT someone who, out of fear, CHOOSES to do what is right. That man is not being cowardly -- rather, he is being prudent and sensible. Fear is an excellent and perfectly valid motivator toward good works. God uses it frequently and He instructs us, at times, to do likewise. The Book of Proverbs is filled with examples of the wisdom of a proper fear of God...
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...
"If god cannot lie, how is he omnipotent?"
God's omnipotence, as I understand it, entails that everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen, is caused by Him. This necessitates that it is impossible for anything to occur, past, present, or future, that was not ultimately caused by Him.
Continue reading...