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
"How does your belief system, and the authorities upon which it is based, guide your behavior?"
The Bible teaches in Matthew 22:36-40 that all of God's laws for humanity depend upon obedience to the following two commands: 1. Love God. ("Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.") 2. Love your neighbor. ("Love your neighbor as yourself.") The most important thing to note here is that love for God must always come before and have total priority over love for other people -- otherwise we fall into idolatry.
Continue reading...
"How is God any different than Santa Claus?"
This is sort of an odd question as there are so many very obvious differences. For example, Santa wears a red hat, whereas God doesn't have a physical head to put a hat onto. I don't know of any religion or worldview that claims that God climbs in and out of chimneys, either. There is, in this question, an implicit attack on theism. However, it is quite possibly one of the silliest attacks on theism I have ever encountered, and I encounter it rather frequently.
Continue reading...
"Who killed King Saul, cause Samuel 31:4 and 2 Samuel 1:8-10 contradict each other?"
1 Samuel 31:4-5 Then Saul said to his armor bearer, "Draw your sword and pierce me through with it, otherwise these uncircumcised will come and pierce me through and make sport of me." But his armor bearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. So Saul took his sword and fell on it. When his armor bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword and died with him. 2 Samuel 1:8-10 "He said to me, 'Who are you?' And I answered him, 'I am an Amalekite.
Continue reading...