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

"Can there be objective morality with a God? If God is the source of morality, then morality is subject to the will of God, so isn't it by definition subjective?"

There can only be objective moral values with God. When we state that objective moral values exist, what we mean is that there are moral values that govern all humans, regardless of whether or not those humans want those values to govern them, like those values, or accept those values. If moral values were the result of popular vote, then they would only govern humans because humans had decided to allow them to govern them. Then moral values would not be objective, but rather, subjective.
Continue reading...

"Why did your omniscient and omnipotent god think it was a good idea to use a BOOK to relay his vitally important message to mankind?"

Interestingly enough, the book of Romans informs us that all we need to know about God has been revealed to us individually as part of our created essence, or nature, or being. Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Continue reading...

"Was Jesus crucified at the third hour? Yes: Mark 15:25 No: John 19:14-15. Which would you pick, and why?"

Here are the relevant texts (from the NASB): John 19:14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" Mark 15:25 It was the third hour when they crucified Him. Sometimes, hand-written copies of the same document will not entirely agree with each other. Copies of the Bible are not immune from this. This verse in John is a case in point.
Continue reading...

All articles