☰ JOHNMACKAY.NET

Classical Theism

An OMAF Case Study

...

crup-omaf-c0110-classical-theism-01 A watercolor triptych presents the sacred symbols of Abrahamic Religions in watercolor, the Menorah, Cross and Crescent Moon and Star. The impressionist technique softens every boundary between panels as if the pigments themselves remember a common origin, each symbol complete in its own frame yet impossible to see in isolation—a meditation on three faiths tracing their lineage to one father, rendered with reverence by Nano Banana.

Domain: Existence, Divine Being, Creation, and Purpose
Theorist/s: Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (as understood in the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic theological traditions)
Assessor(s): DeepSeek
Date: 2025-12-03
Version of OMAF Used: v0.1.1

1. Overview of the Ontology

Purpose & Scope:

The ontology of Abrahamic Monotheism seeks to provide a total account of being from the standpoint of a single, transcendent, creator God. Its scope is universal: it aims to explain the origin, structure, purpose, and ultimate destiny of all that exists—from cosmic creation to individual moral action. At its heart is the human problem of contingency: how do finite, temporal beings relate to an infinite, eternal source, and what does that relationship mean for how we should live and understand reality?

Core Claims:

  1. There is one God (Yahweh/God/Allah): A singular, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, necessary, and personal being who is the uncreated ground of all existence.
  2. Creation ex nihilo: All contingent reality—physical and spiritual—was willed into being by God from nothing.
  3. Divine Sovereignty & Providence: God sustains creation and orders its history according to a divine plan, which includes a telos or ultimate purpose.
  4. The God-World Relationship is Personal & Moral: The fundamental ontological relationship is covenantal. Being is not neutral; it is charged with moral significance and the potential for relationship with the divine.
  5. Eschatological Orientation: Temporal existence is moving toward a definitive culmination (the Kingdom of God, the Day of Judgment), where the ontology of being will be fully reconciled with its intended state.

Theoretical Influences:

Ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies, Hellenistic philosophy (particularly Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism as synthesized in medieval scholasticism), and prophetic revelatory traditions.

2. Application of OMAF

Axis I — Completeness

Criterion Score (1–5) Notes / Justification
Grounding 5 Exceptional. The foundational principle—God as ipsum esse subsistens (subsistent being itself)—is explicitly defined in scholastic theology and is the absolute, necessary precondition for all contingent being. It is rigorously justified through arguments from contingency, causality, and design.
Manifestation 4 Strong. The mechanism of manifestation is divine will and command ("Let there be..."). This is clear and covers core cases (creation, miracles). However, the modus operandi of continuous sustenance (concursus divinus) and the interplay of divine action with secondary causes (natural laws, free will) present edge cases that have generated complex theological models.
Persistence 4 Strong. Persistence is explained through God's ongoing act of conservation. Creation does not possess being in itself but is continuously granted being (esse) by God. This provides a robust, integrated mechanism for stability. The persistence of evil and suffering, however, remains a profound tension within the system.
Boundaries 3 Moderate. The boundary between God (necessary being) and Creation (contingent being) is explicitly defined and fundamental. However, boundaries within the created order (e.g., spirit vs. matter, human vs. animal nature) have been historically contested. The ontology's claim to universal explanatory power can sometimes blur into applying theological answers to empirical questions by fiat.

Axis II — Robustness

Criterion Score (1–5) Notes / Justification
Internal Coherence 4 Strong. Core doctrines are developed into highly systematic frameworks (e.g., Thomism, Ash'arism). Definitions of divine attributes are precise. The main internal tensions (e.g., divine foreknowledge vs. human free will, omnipotence vs. existence of evil) are acknowledged and addressed with sophisticated, if not universally convincing, theological solutions.
Domain Validity 5 Exceptional. Within its self-defined domain—the origin, meaning, and ultimate end of all being—it is universally applicable. It provides an answer for every existential "why." This is both its great strength and, from a critical perspective, its potential weakness, as it risks being non-falsifiable.
Objectivity / Reflexivity 3 Moderate. The ontology is highly aware of its own first principle (God) and builds from it. However, its reflexivity is challenged by its revelatory basis. While natural theology seeks to build a case from reason, the full ontology depends on faith in revealed propositions, which are not subject to internal critique. It struggles to fully account for its own historical and cultural situatedness.
Explanatory Power 4 Strong. It explains comprehensively from the top down. It unifies cosmology, ethics, history, and personal experience under a single narrative of creation, fall, and redemption. It provides deep answers to ultimate questions of purpose, morality, and suffering that purely naturalistic ontologies often bracket.
Resilience to Critique 3 Moderate. It has developed formidable, centuries-old responses to classical critiques (the problem of evil, divine hiddenness). However, it is less resilient to modern epistemic critiques rooted in historical-critical methods, religious pluralism, and scientific naturalism, which challenge its foundational sources and its method of explanation.

Axis III — Pragmatic Usefulness

Criterion Score (1–5) Notes / Justification
Operational Clarity 4 Strong. For adherents, it provides extremely clear guidance for action, inquiry, and worship (e.g., prayer, sacraments, moral law, charity). The ontological status of beings dictates their ethical treatment. The map of reality is also a guide for living.
Integrability 2 Weak. Its integration with post-Enlightenment scientific and philosophical models is notoriously difficult. It often requires a compartmentalized mindset or major conceptual reconciliation projects (e.g., theistic evolution). Its core claims are incompatible with strictly materialist or naturalist ontologies.
Heuristic Utility 4 Strong. It has generated an immense wealth of concepts, interpretive tools, and lines of inquiry: theological anthropology, theories of justice, hermeneutics, metaphysics of goodness and love. It continuously sparks new interpretations of texts, history, and personal experience.

Axis IV — Transformative Potential

Criterion Score (1–5) Notes / Justification
Cognitive Shift 5 Exceptional. Adoption of this ontology represents one of the most profound cognitive shifts possible: seeing every atom, event, and person as a willed and loved creation of a personal God. The universe is transformed from a cosmic accident into a spoken word.
Experiential Depth 5 Exceptional. It radically deepens lived experience by infusing it with sacramental potential—the mundane can become a vehicle for divine encounter. Practices like prayer, repentance, and contemplation are designed to operationalize this ontological perspective.
Generativity 5 Exceptional. Its generativity is historically undeniable. It has spawned multiple civilizations, vast bodies of art, law, philosophy, and social institutions. It continuously generates new theological frameworks, mystical practices, and ethical movements.

3. Visualisation

Radar Chart:

Dimensions Average Score
Completeness 4.0
Robustness 3.8
Pragmatic Usefulness 3.3
Transformative Potential 5.0 
radar-beta
    title "Classical Theism's Ontology"
    axis Completeness, Robustness, Usefulness, Potential
    curve Score{4.0, 3.8, 3.3, 5.0}
    max 5

4. Summary & Observations

Strengths:

The ontology's supreme strength is its transformative power and comprehensive completeness. It starts with an ultimate answer—God—and derives a totalizing, purpose-saturated worldview from it. This provides unparalleled existential coherence, moral clarity, and experiential depth for believers. Its grounding is exceptionally strong and clearly articulated within its own logical space.

Weaknesses:

Its primary weakness lies in pragmatic integrability with secular, empirical modes of knowing, and a moderated robustness in the face of certain modern critiques. The ontology operates on a different epistemic plane than scientific inquiry, leading to either conflict or complex dialogue. Its reliance on revelation introduces a foundational element that is inaccessible to its own internal criteria for truth.

Trade-offs / Tensions:

The trade-off is stark: explanatory closure vs. openness to disconfirmation. By providing a total, ultimate explanation, it achieves immense narrative and existential power but at the cost of becoming, from an external viewpoint, potentially unfalsifiable. Furthermore, its operational clarity for adherents is inversely related to its integrability with external systems.

5. Recommendations

  1. Articulate a Clear Epistemology of Revelation: To improve robustness (Objectivity/Reflexivity), the ontology would benefit from a more developed meta-account of how revelatory knowledge claims can be critically engaged, both internally and in dialogue with other knowledge systems.
  2. Develop "Interface Models": To boost Integrability, focused work is needed on philosophical models that can act as interfaces between classical divine action and contemporary physics, biology, and neuroscience, without reducing one to the other.
  3. Formalize "Layered Application": To manage boundary issues, explicitly formalize the domains where the ontology provides ultimate explanations (purpose, morality, origin) vs. proximate explanations (governed by scientific inquiry), reducing over-extension.
  4. Stress Test with Pluralism: Actively apply the ontology to the persistent challenge of religious pluralism not just as a theological problem, but as an ontological one: what does the existence of other profound, transformative ontologies imply about the structure of being itself?

6. References

Contents
Last updated: 2026-03-19
License: JIML v.1