Unitarianism
Definition
Unitarianism refers to any philosophy which claims that divine sovereignty is not shared in any way.
Keywords: Unitarianism, Philosophy, God, Irrational, False, Contradictory, Reality, Deductive, Universe, Time, Argument From Reason.
Veracity
Unitarian claims are false .
Proof
Simplified
Any worldview that denies an omniscient, sovereign, rational author of time and the universe allows for no possible rational justification for the assumption that reality is non-contradictory.
Premise 1: A rational, sovereign, omniscient author of time and the universe will, of necessity, eternally conceive of himself as his own ultimate reason for everything that occurs. The conception of himself will eternally be the exact representation of himself, sharing divine sovereignty, since this conception is the reason for everything that occurs.
Premise 2: Under unitarianism, divine sovereignty is not shared.
Conclusion: Therefore, under unitarianism, either there is no author of time and the universe; or else the author of time and the universe is not omniscient; or else the author of time and the universe is not sovereign; or else the author of time and the universe is not rational.
Humans assume that reality is non-contradictory. Under unitarianism, there can ultimately be no rational authority behind this assumption, making it an irrational assumption. This makes unitarianism deductively false.
In depth
Any worldview that denies an omniscient, sovereign, rational author of time and the universe allows for no possible rational justification for the assumption that reality is non-contradictory.
A. All things formed must be formed by reasoning causes for our beliefs about them to be rational.
Premise 1: Any belief formed by non-reasoning causes is believed without reason.
Premise 2: A belief about anything is caused in part by the existence of that thing.
Conclusion: Therefore, any belief about anything is believed without reason unless the existence of that thing is not formed by non-reasoning causes.
B. All things formed must ultimately be formed by only one reasoning cause for our beliefs about them to be rational.
Premise 1: In the convergence of multiple causes, the result is at least partly the result of the convergence of causes.
Premise 2: The convergence of multiple causes is not itself reasoning.
Conclusion: Therefore, any belief formed by the convergence of multiple ultimate causes is believed without reason.
C. God conceives of himself as his own reason.
Premise 1: If all things formed are formed by one reasoning cause (from B above), it itself is the only reason for them.
Premise 2: Anything that reasons, and has only one reason, conceives of that reason.
Conclusion: Therefore, if all things formed are formed by one reasoning cause, it conceives of it itself as the reason for them.
D. Divinity is shared in any rational god.
Premise 1: With a rational god, god's reason is god himself.
Premise 2: There is a distinction between the concept and the thing conceived of.
Conclusion: Therefore, with a rational god, divinity is shared between the concept and the thing conceived of.
Humans assume that reality is non-contradictory. Under unitarianism, there can ultimately be no rational authority behind this assumption, making it an irrational assumption.
This Argument from Reason demonstrates that unitarianism 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
"You say god cannot lie? He said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate from the 'Tree'.. yet they did not die. He said nothing about sin, he said that they would die."
Genesis 2:16-17 (NASB) The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." At first glance, it is difficult to see how this was true, according to the Genesis narrative. After all, the day that Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, they didn't fall down dead.
Continue reading...
"How can man be blamed for his inbred sin when he did not ask to be born or even exist?"
Think about your favorite fictional book, or your favorite movie. If you're anything like me, your favorite story probably has a bad guy in it. The bad guy does bad things. And if the story is any good, then at the end of it, the villain either gets thrown in prison, or he's killed by the good guys, or else he turns away from his bad behavior and becomes good.
Continue reading...
"Your previous answer states that you agree that homosexual people should be executed. This conflicts with the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". Justify this please."
Actually, my answer was that those who disobey God deserve to be executed, including myself. So, rephrasing your question slightly, how is it then that anyone "should" be executed when no one is allowed to kill? The short answer is that the prohibition against killing humans is a general rule or principle that holds for all humans and all animals (Genesis 9:5-6) unless God specifically commands otherwise.
Continue reading...