Open Theism is basically the view that God does not know the future. The Evangelical Philosophical society recently tweeted this post by Alexander Pruss on the topic. I found it very interesting. The argument he presents is (quoted word for word from his blog):
- (Premise) If p is overwhelmingly probable on the balance of God’s evidence, then God believes p.
- (Premise) If open theism is true, then some of the propositions that are overwhelmingly probable on the balance of God’s evidence are false.
- Therefore, if open theism is true, God believes some falsehoods.
- (Premise) God believes no falsehoods.
- Therefore, open theism is false.
I think that perhaps the best way for the open theist to avoid this argument may actually be to deny (4), for which Pruss does not argue. The open theist could hold that: (4`) Possibly, God believes falsehoods. I doubt that many open theists would be perturbed by accepting this premise, but I may be wrong. If I’m right, however, Pruss’s neat argument doesn’t work. Again, check it out.