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

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
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.
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
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
PlatoPlato
John Stewart MillJohn Stewart Mill
William JamesWilliam James
Rabi KushnerRabi Kushner

Atheism:Atheism: No God at AllNo God at All

4. Atheism4. Atheism
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
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
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:
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
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
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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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).

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).

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

More Related Content

What's hot

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

More from godknt777

Recently uploaded

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