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

"Would you please provide step-by-step logic, or point me to where I might find it, for your statements about atheism and polytheism?"

Sure. Here is how I see it. First, we demonstrate that infinite regress is incoherent. 1. Infinite Regress is logically incoherent. Infinite regress would mean that we have completely iterated, one-by-one, through every single item of an infinite series. If we were to go backwards through each previous item, and there were an infinite number of past items, there would necessarily be some item in the set of previous items that we would never, ever get to.
Continue reading...

"If Jesus really was God, and he shares an equal part of the trinity (meaning they are all coequal; none are above each other) then why does Jesus say in John 14:28: My Father is GREATER than I?"

Being co-equal is not intended as a mathematical equality and does not necessitate that none is in charge of another. The scriptures talk about the equality of the Father and Son in John 5:18, where John states "For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
Continue reading...

"Mr. McCabe, you obviously don't read your own Bible. On the first page alone (Genesis) in the Arabic Bibles around the world the word Allah is there 17 times. YHWH was only given in Exodus, there aren't any vowels, so why did you say Yahweh?"

This question appears to be in response to my answer to the question "Aren't Allah, Brahman and Yahweh just different names for the same God?". Thanks for your comments. When I read the question "Aren't Allah, Brahman and Yahweh just different names for the same God?", my understanding was that the questioner was suggesting that it was possible that we all worship the same God, just by different names. The thrust of my argument was that we worship different Gods.
Continue reading...

All articles