Open Theism

In my judgment, propositions are either true or false. Either this or that. I don't understand a proposition being neither true nor false. If a proposition can be neutral it seems to make no assertion or statement of fact. But this seems to be self-refuting in virtue that the proposition "all future contingent propositions are neutral" is not neutral.

I'm willing to make the model claim the law of contradiction obtains in all possible worlds; I guess that implies I shoulder the burden to prove the same for bivalence. Perhaps. But I too affirm God possesses non-propositional knowledge. I concur one can deny bivalence. I think open theists do this since they think it entails fatalism. I don't buy it. I think it's a logical leap.

The main contention with open theism is whether propositions of future contingents can be known. I see no reason to deny this. But what is the difference between a truth and a truth that is logically possible to know? The open theist is free to attempt to argue such truths are logically impossible to know. At best I think she can argue God does not know future contingent propositions but this is a far cry from the stronger claim it is logically impossible for Him to know them.

I do think the open theist conception of God is deficient. In open theism God is ignorant of many truths yet considered omniscient. Omniscience is taken as a model notion by the open theist when it is, in fact, a categorical notion. God doesn't merely have the 'ability' to know only and all possible truths; he knows only and all truths.

Anderson and Welty Reply to Critics

It has been a few years now since James Anderson and Greg Welty published their Argument for God from Logic paper (in the Philosophia Christi). Now Anderson and Welty respond to critics. Check it out here.  

Why I Will Raise My Children With God Part 2

Next the blogger says, “God is not logical." She gives evidence of her claim by appealing to God’s “apparent” hiddenness during pain and suffering. She says, “Why did God allow this [pain and suffering] to happen? The blogger interprets most common answer as, “We don’t understand, so we will not think about it or deal with the issue.” I think what best illustrates the bloggers argument is when she writes, “If there is a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God who loves his children, does it make sense that he would allow murders, child abuse, wars, brutal beatings, torture and millions of heinous acts to be committed throughout the history of mankind?” I must admit with the blogger that the evil we see is devastating. The pain people go through is real and brings much sorrow. But does such evil in the world make God illogical? I think the blogger is clearly confused between epistemology and ethics. But let us overlook this fact. If God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil to exist, then there is no contradiction in saying God and evil exist. But perhaps, what the blogger is really getting at is, she expects God to intervene at every moment to remove evil.  Such a view would imply God must remove all causes of evil including human beings. Furthermore, it would remove the nomological laws of nature. Distinctions between physical laws and miracles would collapse.

Moreover, the blogger cannot account for moral absolutes, thus she is still not in a position to make moral claims against God. Even more, the atheist, cannot account for logic. Logic refers to invariable, immaterial, universal and necessary laws that human minds are obligated to conform to. They prescribe how humans “ought” to think. How can an atheist “justify” the laws of logic? Given atheism, there cannot be immaterial laws all humans “ought” to obey. But from a Christian perspective, we can effectively justify logic. Scripture teaches God is the standard of rationality. His thinking is the type that our thinking ought to be a token of. He is intrinsically logical and therefore, we are to reflect His thinking being made in the image of God.