• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
"WORLDVIEWS: How do YOU see Reality?" (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)
 

"WORLDVIEWS: How do YOU see Reality?" (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)

on

  • 494 views

How do YOU view the world around you? What is the worldview that you subscribe to? Does YOUR worldview answer the 4 fundamental questions of humanity in a satisfying way: ...

How do YOU view the world around you? What is the worldview that you subscribe to? Does YOUR worldview answer the 4 fundamental questions of humanity in a satisfying way:

1. ORIGIN - "Where did I come from?"
2. MEANING - "What is the purpose of life?"
3. MORALITY - "Is there a real moral standard?"
4. DESTINY - "What happens to us when we die?"

Examine this presentation, and learn what the 7 major worldviews are today, which ones are strong intellectually and logically, and make the decision for yourself which is the most reasonable way to view reality.

For more resources, visit www.intelligentfaith315.com
or go to: www.youtube.com/user/intelligentfaith315

Statistics

Views

Total Views
494
Views on SlideShare
429
Embed Views
65

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

2 Embeds 65

http://intelligentfaith315.com 61
http://intelligent-faith-92vs.squarespace.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    "WORLDVIEWS: How do YOU see Reality?" (by Intelligent Faith 315.com) "WORLDVIEWS: How do YOU see Reality?" (by Intelligent Faith 315.com) Presentation Transcript

    • World ViewsWorld Views Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2008Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2008
    • I. What is a World View?I. What is a World View?  A. It is a way of viewing the world.A. It is a way of viewing the world.  B. It it the glasses through whichB. It it the glasses through which oneone views everything.views everything.  C. It is the macro-model by which weC. It is the macro-model by which we understand the world.understand the world.  D. It is the interpretive framework byD. It is the interpretive framework by which we make sense ofwhich we make sense of everything.everything.
    • II. How Many Are There?II. How Many Are There? 1.Theism1.Theism 2.2. DeismDeism 3. Finite Godism3. Finite Godism 4. Atheism4. Atheism 5. Pantheism5. Pantheism 6. Panentheism6. Panentheism 7. Polytheism7. Polytheism
    • Theism:Theism: God created AllGod created All
    • 1. Theism1. Theism Basic Beliefs:Basic Beliefs: God created the world (He isGod created the world (He is Transcendent).Transcendent). God does not sustain the world (He isGod does not sustain the world (He is Immanent).Immanent). God does miracles.God does miracles. Proponents:Proponents: JudaismJudaism IslamIslam ChristianityChristianity AugustineAugustine AnselmAnselm AquinasAquinas C. S. LewisC. S. Lewis
    • Deism:Deism: God is beyondGod is beyond the World but not in Itthe World but not in It
    • 2. Deism2. Deism Basic Beliefs:Basic Beliefs: God created the world (He isGod created the world (He is Transcendent).Transcendent). God does not sustain the world (He isGod does not sustain the world (He is not Immanent).not Immanent). God does not do miracles.God does not do miracles. Proponents:Proponents: Francois-Marie VoltaireFrancois-Marie Voltaire John TolandJohn Toland Thomas JeffersonThomas Jefferson Thomas PaineThomas Paine
    • Finite Godism:Finite Godism: GodGod is beyondis beyond world but isworld but is limitedlimited in powerin power and/orand/or perfectionperfection
    • 3. Finite Godism3. Finite Godism Basic Beliefs:Basic Beliefs: FiniteFinite God created the world (modern)God created the world (modern) Finite God forms and eternal world (ancient)Finite God forms and eternal world (ancient) God does not completely control the worldGod does not completely control the world Evil shows God is limited in power and/orEvil shows God is limited in power and/or perfectionperfection God does not do miraclesGod does not do miracles Proponents:Proponents: PlatoPlato John Stewart MillJohn Stewart Mill William JamesWilliam James Rabi KushnerRabi Kushner
    • Atheism:Atheism: No God at AllNo God at All
    • 4. Atheism4. Atheism Basic Beliefs:Basic Beliefs: No God, infinite or finite, existsNo God, infinite or finite, exists Evil exists and is evidence against GodEvil exists and is evidence against God No miracles are possibleNo miracles are possible ““God” is an illusion or projectionGod” is an illusion or projection Proponents:Proponents: LucretiusLucretius Friedrich NietzscheFriedrich Nietzsche Ludwig FeuerbachLudwig Feuerbach Sigmund FreudSigmund Freud Richard DawkinsRichard Dawkins
    • Pantheism:Pantheism: God is AllGod is All
    • Panentheism:Panentheism: God is in AllGod is in All
    • Polytheism:Polytheism: There areThere are many finite godsmany finite gods..
    • Three Major World ViewsThree Major World Views TheismTheism Pantheism AtheismPantheism Atheism God made all God is all No God at allGod made all God is all No God at all Mind made matter All is Mind All is matterMind made matter All is Mind All is matter
    • Theism versusTheism versus DeismDeism Beyond WorldBeyond World Beyond worldBeyond world & in the world& in the world & not in the world& not in the world Problem:Problem: God did the big miracleGod did the big miracle (creation) but not smaller ones(creation) but not smaller ones (like resurrection(like resurrection))
    • Theism vs. Finite GodismTheism vs. Finite Godism InfiniteInfinite FiniteFinite Problems:Problems: 1. Contrary to principle of causality:1. Contrary to principle of causality: “Every finite being needs a cause.”“Every finite being needs a cause.” So, God would need a Cause (inSo, God would need a Cause (in which case He would not be Godwhich case He would not be God but a creature).but a creature).
    • Theism vs. Finite GodismTheism vs. Finite Godism InfiniteInfinite FiniteFinite ProblemsProblems:: 1. Contrary to principle of causality:1. Contrary to principle of causality: “Every finite being needs a cause.”“Every finite being needs a cause.” greater than God (an infinite Being)greater than God (an infinite Being) 3. No guarantee of victory over evil (in3. No guarantee of victory over evil (in which case evil is more ultimatewhich case evil is more ultimate than good).than good).
    • Theism vs. AtheismTheism vs. Atheism God eGod existsxists No God existsNo God exists Problems:Problems: 1. There is no evidence for atheism.1. There is no evidence for atheism. (Evil presupposes God)(Evil presupposes God)
    • Theism vs. AtheismTheism vs. Atheism God eGod existsxistsNo God existsNo God exists Problems:Problems: 1. There is no evidence for atheism.1. There is no evidence for atheism. (Evil presupposes God)(Evil presupposes God) 2. There is strong evidence against it2. There is strong evidence against it (cosmological, teleological, and(cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments).moral arguments).
    • TheismTheism versusversus PantheismPantheism God made all God is allGod made all God is all I am not GodI am not God I am GodI am God Evil is realEvil is real Evil isn’t realEvil isn’t real ..
    • Problems with Pantheism:Problems with Pantheism: 1. It denies sense experience, yet uses it to find and share truth.
    • Problems withProblems with Pantheism:Pantheism: 1. It denies sense experience, yet uses it to find and share truth. 2. It claims we can change from illusion to enlightenment; a. We can change. b. We are God. c. Yet God cannot change.
    • Problems withProblems with Pantheism:Pantheism: 1. It denies sense experience, yet uses it to find and share truth. 2. It claims we can change from illusion to enlightenment; a. We can change. b. We are God. c. Yet God cannot change.
    • Problems withProblems with Pantheism:Pantheism: 3. It recognizes the existence of opposing views are yet claims they are an illusion.
    • Theism vs. PolytheismTheism vs. Polytheism OneOne GodGod Many GodsMany Gods InfiniteInfinite FiniteFinite Problems:Problems: 1. Every finite needs and infinite1. Every finite needs and infinite Cause (So, Polytheistic gods needCause (So, Polytheistic gods need a Creator).a Creator). 2.2. A uni-verse needs a uni-Cause (cf.A uni-verse needs a uni-Cause (cf. the Anthropic Principle).the Anthropic Principle).
    • Theism versus PanentheismTheism versus Panentheism MonopolarMonopolar BipolarBipolar No partsNo parts PartsParts InfiniteInfinite FiniteFinite IndependentIndependent DependentDependent Absolutely perfectAbsolutely perfect Not perfectNot perfect UnchangingUnchanging ChangingChanging
    • The Problems with PanentheismThe Problems with Panentheism 1.1. God is self-caused which is impossible.God is self-caused which is impossible.
    • The Problems with PanentheismThe Problems with Panentheism 1.1. God is self-caused which is impossible.God is self-caused which is impossible. 2. God and world are mutually dependent2. God and world are mutually dependent which is impossible.which is impossible.
    • The Problems with PanentheismThe Problems with Panentheism 1.1. God is self-caused which is impossible.God is self-caused which is impossible. 2. God and world are mutually dependent2. God and world are mutually dependent which is impossible.which is impossible. 3. God is changing which is not possible3. God is changing which is not possible without an unchanging basis forwithout an unchanging basis for change (which would be more ultimatechange (which would be more ultimate than God).than God).
    • The Problems with PanentheismThe Problems with Panentheism 1.1. God is self-caused which is impossible.God is self-caused which is impossible. 2. God and world are mutually dependent2. God and world are mutually dependent which is impossible.which is impossible. 3. God is changing which is not possible3. God is changing which is not possible without an unchanging basis forwithout an unchanging basis for changechange (which would be more ultimate than God).(which would be more ultimate than God). 4. God is not perfect (which demands a4. God is not perfect (which demands a Perfect by which He is measured).Perfect by which He is measured).
    • The Problems with PanentheismThe Problems with Panentheism 5. Their concept of change is incoherent, for--5. Their concept of change is incoherent, for-- a. There is no continuity in the change.a. There is no continuity in the change. b. It is change w/o anything that changes.b. It is change w/o anything that changes. c. It is annihilation/recreation without ac. It is annihilation/recreation without a Creator to do the recreation.Creator to do the recreation.
    • The Problems with PanentheismThe Problems with Panentheism 5. Their concept of change is incoherent, for--5. Their concept of change is incoherent, for-- a. There is no continuity in the change.a. There is no continuity in the change. b. It is change w/o anything that changes.b. It is change w/o anything that changes. c. It is annihilation/recreation without ac. It is annihilation/recreation without a Creator to do the recreation.Creator to do the recreation. 6. If God is temporal, then—6. If God is temporal, then— a. He must have a beginning;a. He must have a beginning; b. He must be material;b. He must be material; c. He must be running down (II Law).c. He must be running down (II Law). d. He can’t think faster than light.d. He can’t think faster than light. In short, the panentheistic God is aIn short, the panentheistic God is a creature in need of a Creator.creature in need of a Creator.
    • NeotheismNeotheism ((The New TheismThe New Theism):): “The New Kid on the Block”“The New Kid on the Block” Other Names:Other Names:  ““Openness of God” ViewOpenness of God” View  ““Free Will Theism”Free Will Theism”
    • Theism versus NeotheismTheism versus Neotheism SimilaritiesSimilarities God is infiniteGod is infinite God is uncausedGod is uncaused God is necessaryGod is necessary DifferencesDifferences SimpleSimple ComplexComplex UnchangeableUnchangeable ChangeableChangeable Non-temporalNon-temporal TemporalTemporal OmniscientOmniscient Not omniscientNot omniscient
    • Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism 1. They claim God is infinite.1. They claim God is infinite. 2. They claim God has parts.2. They claim God has parts. 3. But an infinite being can’t have3. But an infinite being can’t have parts.parts. a.a. Everything with parts canEverything with parts can have more parts.have more parts. b. But there cannot be moreb. But there cannot be more than an infinite.than an infinite. c. Hence, an infinite Beingc. Hence, an infinite Being cannot have parts.cannot have parts.
    • Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism 1. They claim God can change.1. They claim God can change. 2. But whatever changes has parts.2. But whatever changes has parts. a. In all accidental change, parta. In all accidental change, part remains and part does not.*remains and part does not.* b. But God has no parts.b. But God has no parts. c. Hence, God cannot change.c. Hence, God cannot change. **In substantial change, the being goesIn substantial change, the being goes out of existence. But they agree God isout of existence. But they agree God is a Necessary Being and can’t go out ofa Necessary Being and can’t go out of existence)existence)
    • Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism 1. They claim God is a Necessary Being.1. They claim God is a Necessary Being. 2. But a Necessary Being has no2. But a Necessary Being has no potentiality in its Being (not to exist).potentiality in its Being (not to exist). 3. But what has no potentiality cannot3. But what has no potentiality cannot change in its Being, for change ischange in its Being, for change is the actualization of a potentiality.the actualization of a potentiality.
    • Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism 1. They claim God is temporal.1. They claim God is temporal. 2. But what is temporal undergoes2. But what is temporal undergoes change, for time measures change.change, for time measures change. 3. Hence, a temporal God changes.3. Hence, a temporal God changes. 4. But what changes is caused, for—4. But what changes is caused, for— a. Change moves from potency to act.a. Change moves from potency to act. b. And no potency can actualize itself.b. And no potency can actualize itself. 5. But neotheists believe God is5. But neotheists believe God is uncaused.uncaused. 6. Hence, neotheism is inconsistent.6. Hence, neotheism is inconsistent.
    • Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism 1. They claim God does not know1. They claim God does not know future free acts for sure.future free acts for sure. 2. The Bible says God does knows2. The Bible says God does knows future free acts for sure (Acts 2:23;future free acts for sure (Acts 2:23; Jn. 10:17-18; Isa. 46:10).Jn. 10:17-18; Isa. 46:10).
    • Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism 1. They claim the Bible is infallible.1. They claim the Bible is infallible. 2. Yet they believe the Bible makes2. Yet they believe the Bible makes predictions about free actionspredictions about free actions (which would be fallible).(which would be fallible).
    • Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism 1. They claim God can’t know the1. They claim God can’t know the future for sure.future for sure. 2. Yet they believe God will defeat evil2. Yet they believe God will defeat evil in the end.in the end.
    • Some Errors of NeotheismSome Errors of Neotheism 1. Confusing God’s1. Confusing God’s naturenature andand activityactivity.. (What God(What God isis and what Godand what God doesdoes)) a. God is eternal, but He acts in time.a. God is eternal, but He acts in time. b. God is unchanging, but Heb. God is unchanging, but He produces change in thingsproduces change in things.. 2. Assuming God’s2. Assuming God’s naturenature changeschanges because Hisbecause His relationshipsrelationships do.do. a.a. The person changes in relationThe person changes in relation to the pillar, but–to the pillar, but– b.b. The pillar does not change inThe pillar does not change in relation to the person.relation to the person.
    • Major ConclusionMajor Conclusion God is proactive,God is proactive, not reactive?not reactive? “I am God and there is no like me,“I am God and there is no like me, declaring the end from thedeclaring the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10).beginning” (Isa. 46:10).
    • The EndThe End
    • For More InformationFor More Information On Books, Tapes, and Videos:On Books, Tapes, and Videos:  Call (704) 846-1226Call (704) 846-1226  WWW:/ Impact Apologetics.comWWW:/ Impact Apologetics.com On Accredited Classes by ExtensionOn Accredited Classes by Extension Call 1-800-77-TRUTHCall 1-800-77-TRUTH WWW:/ SES.EDUWWW:/ SES.EDU
    • Arguments for Simplicity:Arguments for Simplicity: The Arguments from God’s:The Arguments from God’s: 1. Uncausality1. Uncausality 2. Infinity2. Infinity 3. Independence3. Independence 4. Necessity4. Necessity 5. Unity5. Unity
    • Arguments for Simplicity:Arguments for Simplicity: 1. Argument from Uncausality:1. Argument from Uncausality: a. God is an uncaused Being.a. God is an uncaused Being. b. But whatever has irreducibleb. But whatever has irreducible complexity is caused.complexity is caused. c. Therefore, God does not havec. Therefore, God does not have irreducible complexity.irreducible complexity.
    • Arguments for Simplicity:Arguments for Simplicity: 2. Argument from Infinity2. Argument from Infinity a.a. God is an infinite BeingGod is an infinite Being b. But an infinite can’t have partsb. But an infinite can’t have parts 1) Whatever has parts can1) Whatever has parts can have more parts.have more parts. 2) But there cannot be more2) But there cannot be more than an infinitethan an infinite.. c. Hence, God has no parts.c. Hence, God has no parts.
    • Arguments for Simplicity:Arguments for Simplicity: 3. The Argument from Independence3. The Argument from Independence a. God is an Independent Being.a. God is an Independent Being. b. Whatever is composed isb. Whatever is composed is dependent on another whodependent on another who composed it.composed it. c.c. Hence, God is not composed.Hence, God is not composed.
    • Arguments for Simplicity:Arguments for Simplicity: 4. Argument from God’s Necessity4. Argument from God’s Necessity a. A Necessary Being has nota. A Necessary Being has not potentiality (not to exist).potentiality (not to exist). b.b. What has no potentialityWhat has no potentiality cannot be composed.cannot be composed. c.c. Hence, God has noHence, God has no composition.composition.
    • Arguments for Simplicity:Arguments for Simplicity: 5. Argument from God’s Unity5. Argument from God’s Unity a.a. God has only one essenceGod has only one essence 1. There is a plurality of1. There is a plurality of persons, but--persons, but-- 2. A unity of essence in God.2. A unity of essence in God. b.b. What has parts, has pluralityWhat has parts, has plurality in its essence.in its essence. c.c. Hence, God has no parts.Hence, God has no parts.
    • Objections to God’sObjections to God’s Simplicity:Simplicity: 1.1.Historical ObjectionHistorical Objection 2.2. Theological ObjectionsTheological Objections 3.3. Philosophical ObjectionsPhilosophical Objections ..
    • Objections to Simplicity:Objections to Simplicity: Historical Objection:Historical Objection: It comes fromIt comes from Greek philosophyGreek philosophy Response:Response: 1.1. So does process theology.So does process theology. 2.2. So does logic.So does logic. 3.3. This is a “Genetic Fallacy.”This is a “Genetic Fallacy.” Yet they accept these!Yet they accept these!
    • Objections to Simplicity:Objections to Simplicity: Theological Objection 1:Theological Objection 1: The TrinityThe Trinity denies absolute simplicity of God.denies absolute simplicity of God. Response:Response: 1.1. This confusesThis confuses essenceessence andand personspersons in God.in God. 2.2. There is onlyThere is only one essenceone essence, yet, yet there arethere are three personsthree persons in God.in God.
    • Theological Objection 2:Theological Objection 2: God has manyGod has many attributes. But all members of theattributes. But all members of the Trinity are identical to the sameTrinity are identical to the same essence. Hence, they are the same.essence. Hence, they are the same. Response:Response: This confuses identity ofThis confuses identity of objectobject and identity ofand identity of meaning.meaning. 1. All member of the Trinity are1. All member of the Trinity are identical to the same object (thing);identical to the same object (thing); 2. Yet their meaning implies an2. Yet their meaning implies an opposing relation (e.g., same roadopposing relation (e.g., same road between two cities does not mean theybetween two cities does not mean they are the same cities.are the same cities.
    • Philosophical Objection 1:Philosophical Objection 1: Simplicity is not intelligibleSimplicity is not intelligible Response:Response: 1. It can’t be denied unless it is1. It can’t be denied unless it is understood.understood. 2. It is apprehended, even if not2. It is apprehended, even if not comprehended.comprehended. 3. It is no more difficult to3. It is no more difficult to understand than infinity orunderstand than infinity or uncausality which they claimuncausality which they claim toto understand.understand.
    • Philosophical Objection 2:Philosophical Objection 2: Simplicity is not intelligibleSimplicity is not intelligible Response:Response: 1. It can’t be denied unless it is1. It can’t be denied unless it is understood.understood. 2. It can be apprehend, even if not2. It can be apprehend, even if not comprehended.comprehended. 3. It is no more difficult to understand3. It is no more difficult to understand than infinity or uncausality.than infinity or uncausality. 4. It may be unintelligilbe to us (e.g., an4. It may be unintelligilbe to us (e.g., an unknown language) but not unintell-unknown language) but not unintell- igibleigible in itselfin itself (e.g., a square circle).(e.g., a square circle).
    • Philosophical Objection 3Philosophical Objection 3:: If God isIf God is simple, then all properties aresimple, then all properties are identical. But they are not.identical. But they are not. Response:Response: 1. God’s many attributes are not the1. God’s many attributes are not the same.same. 2. Rather, the same God has many2. Rather, the same God has many attributes.attributes. 3. God has many names, since no3. God has many names, since no one tells all about Him.one tells all about Him. (e.g., a stone is round, hard, & grey)(e.g., a stone is round, hard, & grey)
    • Philosophical Objection 4:Philosophical Objection 4: If God isIf God is identical to His properties, then Heidentical to His properties, then He isis a property (= abstract object),a property (= abstract object), not anot a concrete person. But Heconcrete person. But He is personal.is personal. Response:Response: 1. This wrongly assumed they are1. This wrongly assumed they are predicated of God univocally (notpredicated of God univocally (not analogically).analogically). 2. This assumes the platonic view that2. This assumes the platonic view that properties exist apart from things.properties exist apart from things.