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.

Gilbert Guttlebocker, Defender of Dragons

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!

 

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

"What is your standard of truth? How do you determine what is true?"

1. God Himself is the standard of truth. (John 14:6; Exodus 34:6; 2 Samuel 7:28; Psalm 25:10; Isaiah 65:16; Ephesians 4:21; Titus 1:2; 1 John 5:6) 2. Because of this, when God reveals things to us, we know that what He reveals is true. The Bible stands as an authoritative communication to us from God Himself, and we can often discern truth or falsehood simply by comparing a particular claim with Biblical revelation.
Continue reading...

"In Romans 1:22-27 especially verse 25, it condemns those who turn God's incorruptible image into the image of corruptible man. Why then 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...

"Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose?"

According to Christ, the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). As our greatest command, it is the thing we most ought to do. We exist to love God. How are we to love God? What exactly does that mean? The apostle John tells us that love for God is to obey Him (1 John 5:3).
Continue reading...

All articles