Logical Fallacies - Tumblr Posts
Is Open Theism Biblical?
By Bible researcher Eli Kittim
Open Theism
“Open theism” (aka openness theology) is a theological movement which holds that God doesn’t exercise complete sovereignty over the universe but allows it to be “open” to the contribution of human free will. Put differently, because God cannot possibly know the future in an exhaustive sense, the future is not predetermined by him. Paradoxically, even though open theists seem to affirm God’s omniscience, they nevertheless deny God’s foreknowledge and claim that he doesn’t know everything that will occur. In his book “The Grace of God, The Will of Man,” Clark Pinnock, a Christian theologian and proponent of open theism, writes:
Decisions not yet made do not exist
anywhere to be known even by God. They
are potential— yet to be realized but not yet
actual. God can predict a great deal of
what we will choose to do, but not all of it,
because some of it remains hidden in the
mystery of human freedom … God too faces
possibilities in the future, and not only
certainties. God too moves into a future not
wholly known …
Similarly, in his book “Letters from a Skeptic,” author Greg Boyd, a leading advocate of open theism, explains it thusly:
In the Christian view God knows all of reality
—everything there is to know. But to assume
He knows ahead of time how every person
is going to freely act assumes that each
person’s free activity is already there to
know—even before he freely does it! But it’s
not. If we have been given freedom, we
create the reality of our decisions by
making them. And until we make them, they
don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there
simply isn’t anything to know until we make
it there to know. So God can’t foreknow the
good or bad decisions of the people He
creates until He creates these people and
they, in turn, create their decisions.
Open theism is basically a new model through which scholars have tried to explain the relation of God’s foreknowledge to the free will of human beings. Their argument runs as follows: humankind could not really be free if God knew absolutely everything pertaining to the future. And since open theists believe that human beings are completely free, it follows that God cannot absolutely know all there is to know about the future. This argument would carry over to our understanding of Biblical eschatology and would suggest not only that the future is unknowable, but also that God doesn’t know the future.
Invalid Arguments
However, it seems to me that open theists are committing a logical fallacy, namely, equating the foreknowledge of God with determinism. If that were the case, their conclusion would be correct, to wit, that a deterministic foreknowledge of God would necessarily be incompatible with human free will. But the premise is misconceived. Foreknowledge in and of itself doesn’t necessarily presuppose determinism. Just because God can foresee the future doesn’t mean that he causes it. Calvinism, of course, is the other extreme which maintains that God is the cause of all events, thereby postulating hard determinism without apologies. However, If we, as free agents, were to act in whichever way we chose, and God could foresee our decision, God’s foreknowledge and human free will would be perfectly compatible!
What is more, Open Theism asserts that although God knows all truths, there are certain possibilities which cannot yet be established about the “open” and undetermined future, and thus even God himself doesn’t know their outcome. But this, too, seems to be a logical fallacy. They create a strawman argument in which they falsely equate foreknowledge with logical impossibilities. Once again, the premise is invalid. Just because the “truth” of what will happen is based on many complex, contingent factors, and is unknowable to human beings, doesn’t necessarily imply that it’s equally impossible for God to know it. On the contrary, it wouldn’t be considered illogical for God to know the outcome of any given event. Yet Open theists claim that it’s as logically impossible for God to create squared circles or make 2 + 2 = 5 as it is for him to know the future. But foreknowledge is not a logical impossibility like a squared circle or a married bachelor.
This, of course, can take the form of a very deep and protracted philosophical discussion about the nature of free will and the essence of God’s sovereignty, namely, to what extent are we free agents, and so on. According to open theism, instead of God exhaustively knowing the course of history in toto, God gradually gains knowledge of events as they occur. This is viewed as the “open view of God” since it considers God as open and receptive to new realities. Thus, in contradistinction to classical theism, open theism suggests that God is, in some sense, dependent on the material world to enhance his knowledge.
There is, however, a contradiction in this premise. How could one compare God’s learning curve from the point of view of time if God is said to be timeless? And how could a transcendent God possibly be dependent upon an “inferior reality” (as both Paul and Plato put it) to gain knowledge?
Bible Proofs of God’s Immutability
Opponents of open theism accuse the latter of employing anthropopathisms (i.e. the practice of ascribing human emotions to God). Moreover, Open theist interpretations of the Bible comprise anthropomorphic characterizations of God as “changing His mind” or “seeming to gain knowledge” or even “being surprised” (see Gen. 6.6; 22.12; Exod. 32.14; Jon. 3.10). But these passages should not be read out of context. God is simply trying to describe himself in ways that we can relate to. God’s language of being disappointed with humanity doesn’t mean their actions caught him by surprise. The idea that he “changes His mind” is to illustrate in human terms that he responds to human behavior and allows our free will to make an impact, especially through prayer, not that he literally is unaware of future events. In fact, the immutability of God can be demonstrated Biblically. For example, in Malachi 3.6 (NRSV), God declares “For I the Lord do not change.” In Numbers 23.19, Scripture reads:
God is not a human being, that he should
lie, or a mortal, that he should change his
mind. Has he promised, and will he not do
it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it.
1 Samuel 15.29 says:
the Glory of Israel will not recant or change
his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he
should change his mind.
Bible Proofs of Future Prophecies
Not a few scholars think that in dismissing classical theism’s doctrine of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge, open theism is dangerously reinterpreting the God of the Bible. In this radical re-envisioning of the God of Scripture, how can a clueless God, concerning the future, guarantee the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies? Yet contrary to this position, Psalm 139 verses 4 & 16 read:
Even before a word is on my tongue, O Lord,
you know it completely … Your eyes beheld
my unformed substance. In your book were
written all the days that were formed for
me, when none of them as yet existed.
How could God predict explicit details about Jesus Christ in the Hebrew Bible if he doesn’t even know what the future holds? And, more importantly, how could God possibly guarantee our salvation if he doesn’t have the slightest clue about the future? Furthermore, did God lie in Isaiah 46.9-10 where he declared that he can see the future?:
I am God, and there is no one like me,
declaring the end from the beginning and
from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My purpose shall stand, and I will
fulfil my intention.’
Conclusion
Open Theism is an attempt to balance God’s foreknowledge and humanity’s free will. Open theism’s conclusion is that God doesn’t possess an infallible knowledge of the future. But just as Calvinism is an extreme form of “theological determinism,” turning humans into pre-programmed robots, so open theism goes to the opposite extreme by turning God into a human being who hasn’t the foggiest idea of what the future looks like. Besides rejecting the credible evidence of eschatology and Bible prophecy, on which our faith and hope depend, open theism ultimately fails to demonstrate its key points both scripturally and philosophically!
—
The Logical Problem of Evil
By Author Eli Kittim 🎓
The problem of evil is a philosophical conundrum that seems to contradict the existence of God. The question is as follows:
How can we reconcile the existence of
suffering and evil in the world with a
supposedly omnibenevolent, omniscient,
and omnipotent God?
At first glance, these two premises seem incompatible. The most well-known presentation of this dilemma is ascribed to the ancient Greek philosopher and sage Epicurus (341–270 bce). He framed the logical problem of evil as follows:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is unable,
then he’s not all-powerful.
If he’s able to prevent evil, but unwilling,
then he’s not good.
But if he’s both willing and able,
how can evil exist?
And, if he’s neither able nor willing,
then why call him God? [or worship him?]
Epicurus is trying to point out the apparent incompatibility between the existence of evil and that of God. He’s trying to demonstrate that it’s logically impossible for both God and evil to exist. They are at loggerheads with each other. And since we know that evil and suffering exist, it must mean that God does not.
However, the premise that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God contradicts the presence of evil is unsound. A squared circle or a married bachelor is certainly a contradiction. But it’s not logically inconsistent to speak of the existence of suffering and an all-loving powerful God in the same breath. Epicurus’ implication is that if God was all-powerful and/or all-loving he would not have allowed suffering or evil to exist. So, his premise presupposes that either an all-powerful, all-loving God exists and suffering does not, or else suffering exists and God does not. But both cannot exist simultaneously.
However, this is a false assumption. Why? Because if God grants human beings free will, then the possibility of choosing good or evil does not explicitly contradict the existence of God. In fact, if the opposite were true and God were to create a world in which people didn’t have free will and always chose the good, there would be no suffering, but neither would there be any freedom. It would be a world of programmed robots, not free people.
And how would we even know what good really is if evil and suffering never existed? After all, in the Bible, God promises to eliminate evil & suffering at the end of the age! So, how can we possibly know if God has good reasons for permitting evil and suffering to exist for a time? The answer is, we do not know. Both biblically and philosophically, good and evil are not mutually exclusive but coexist temporally and ontologically. Thus, it is not illogical for both God and suffering to exist simultaneously. As philosopher William P. Alston conceded, “It is now acknowledged on (almost) all sides that the logical argument is bankrupt” (The Inductive Argument From Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition. Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 5, Philosophy of Religion [1991], pp. 29-67).
—
How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Apparent Contradiction
There’s a seeming contradiction in the Bible concerning Abraham’s age when he left Haran. The apparent contradiction is as follows. If Terah died when he was 205 years old, but fathered Abram when he was 70, then Abram must have been 135 years old when his father Terah died (as Gen. 11.26, 32 suggest), not 75, as Gen. 12.4 indicates. For the story to work without any discrepancies, Terah would literally have to be 130 years old when he fathered Abram. But it seemed as if he were only 70 years old. Hence the apparent contradiction. Below are the relevant citations that appear to contradict each other.
—-
Genesis 12.4 (ESV):
So Abram went, as the LORD had told him,
and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-
five years old when he departed from
Haran.
Acts 7.2:
And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers,
hear me. The God of glory appeared to our
father Abraham when he was in
Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.’
Acts 7.4:
Then he went out from the land of the
Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his
father died, God removed him from there
into this land in which you are now living.
Genesis 11.26:
When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered
Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Genesis 11.32:
The days of Terah were 205 years, and
Terah died in Haran.
—————
Apologetic Exegesis
The key passage is Gen. 11.26. The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly say that *when* Terah was 70 years old he begat Abram. Rather, it puts it thusly (Gen. 11.26 KJV):
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat
Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that Terah had all 3 children when he was 70 years old. Nor is there any direct evidence that these children were triplets, or that they were born on the exact same date, month, or year. The verse in Gen. 11.26 merely indicates that after Terah reached a certain age——namely, 70 years old——he began to father children. But exactly when these children were actually born is unknown. The only thing that’s clear from Gen. 11.26 is that they were born after Terah had reached a certain age.
It’s quite possible, for example, that some of his children could have been born when Terah was 130 years old. Nothing in the text would contradict the timing of such a birth. As long as Terah fathered at least one child after he was 70, the rest could have been born anytime between Terah’s 70th and 205th birthday.
The order in which the names of Terah’s sons are listed may not reflect the precise chronological order in which the children were actually born. The text is simply indicating their order of importance. Given that Abram is a key figure in the Old Testament and the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, he’s obviously mentioned first:
there is yet a question whether Abram was
born first as listed, or perhaps he is listed
first because he was the wisest similar to
Shem, Ham, and Jafeth where Shem was
not the oldest, but was the wisest. … the
Talmud leaves the above question open.
(Wikipedia)
—————
Conclusion
Actually, Abram could have been 75 years old when he left Haran, as the text indicates (Gen. 12.4). And maybe he did leave Haran “after his father died” (Acts 7.4) at the age of 205 (Gen. 11.32). There is no contradiction with regard to the dates. The assumed contradiction is actually based on fallacious reasoning and speculation. It’s based on an eisegesis, that is, a misinterpretation of the text. Readers often assume that the text is telling us that Abram was born *when* Terah was 70 years old. But that’s a conjecture. The text doesn’t say that at all. All the text says is that once Terah reached a certain age, he began fathering sons. But exactly when each and every son was born is unknown.
—
Anecdotal evidence is one of the most prevalent logical fallacies on social media. People often use personal experiences or isolated examples to try to prove broader points, ignoring more rigorous scientific evidence.
Conspiracy theories also frequently circulate on social media. These tend to ignore credible evidence in favor of speculation and unproven claims. They often rely on anecdotes, out-of-context information and logical leaps rather than solid data.
Remember: Thinking an opinion is bad just because the majority of people believe it is just as fallacious as saying something is bad because a minority of people believe it.
Also, just having an uncommon opinion does not automatically make you a "free thinker", you can still be unwittingly indoctrinated by a small group of people. Look at cults as an example.
I'm mostly talking to right-wingers and TERFS with this one, but it's a good thing for everyone to know.