Is Open Theism Heresy?

[Guest]

Since we've touched upon the fallacy of the excluded middle, I wonder whether we have given much thought to the fact that in formal logic, the excluded middle is affirmed with respect to truth value of statements.
In that context, it is assumed that the excluded middle is necessary in order to do logic.

Within the last few years, I have realized that the excluded middle should not be maintained even with respect to truth value.

For example, most of us think any statement we utter is either true or false. But clearly that is not the case with the statement X that follows:

X: "The statement I am now uttering is false."

If X is true, the clearly X is false, for the statement itself affirms that it is false.

On the other hand, if X is false, then it is true, for the the truth would then have to be the negation of what is stated.

The only possible conclusion is that statement X is neither true nor false.
Thus, at least one statement is neither true nor false, and thus the law of the excluded middle concerning truth value of statements in formal logic does not always apply.

Could there be other instances of statements which have no truth value?
I think there are, for if not, we encounter other logical contradictions.
I maintain that statements about future choices of free will agents have no truth value.

For example, let's assume that when Joe comes to the fork in the road, he is free to take either the branch on the left, or the one on the right.

Now consider statement Y:

Y: When Joe comes to the fork in the road, he takes the branch on the left.

If that statement is true, then Joe will be unable to take the right branch, and thus he will not be free to take the right branch. For if he did take the right branch, then statement Y is not true. So statement Y being true contradicts our assumption that he is free to take the right branch.

Similarily, if Y is false, then Joe will be unable to take the left branch, and thus he will not be free to take the left branch.

So Y being either true or false, contradicts the statement that Joe is free to take either branch of the road, according to his choice.

Thus, we must conclude that Y is neither true nor false. Y will become true or false, when Joe makes his choice.

The same argument can be extended to include any future choice one may make. Thus any statements about future choices made by free will agents are neither true nor false.

We can either think of such statements as having no truth value, or we can think of them as having a neutral or "middle" truth value. I prefer the former, since the latter may suggest that the statement is "half true and half false". That is clearly not the case.