the Website of Timothy McCabe Follower of Christ; Student of Epistemology, Apologetics, and Theology
Home Good News Proofs Questions Presentations Software More

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.

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

"Is there a question to which you all would give the same - or almost the same - answer?"

I certainly can't speak authoritatively for the opinion of anyone other than myself, but it seems to me that everyone can easily be convinced to agree that if something is, then it is; and also that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same way. In other words, the Laws of Logic are valid. An interesting point to note, however, is that holding to the Laws of Logic can only be rationally justified under Christian assumptions.
Continue reading...

"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.
Continue reading...

"Where is existence going (i.e. eschatology), both immediately and ultimately?"

The Bible states that no one is perfect but God alone (Luke 18:19). As a result, all of us have earned death and condemnation (Romans 6:23). However, in an amazing substitution, God Himself lived the perfect human life in our place, and paid our fine on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5). Those of us who put our trust in the work He did in our place will be forgiven (Romans 4:5, John 3:18).
Continue reading...

All articles