World ViewsWorld Views

Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2008Copyright Norman L. Geisler 2008

I. What is a World View?I. What is a World View?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 which B. It it the glasses through which

one one views everything. views everything. C. It is the macro-model by which we C. It is the macro-model by which we

understand the world. understand the world. D. It is the interpretive framework by D. It is the interpretive framework by

which we make sense of which we make sense of everything. everything.

A. It is a way of viewing the world.A. It is a way of viewing the world. B. It it the glasses through which B. It it the glasses through which

one one views everything. views everything. C. It is the macro-model by which we C. It is the macro-model by which we

understand the world. understand the world. D. It is the interpretive framework by D. It is the interpretive framework by

which we make sense of which we make sense of everything. everything.

II. How Many Are There?II. How Many Are There?1.Theism1.Theism

2.2. DeismDeism3. Finite Godism3. Finite Godism4. Atheism4. Atheism5. Pantheism5. Pantheism6. Panentheism6. Panentheism7. Polytheism7. Polytheism

Theism:Theism: God created AllGod created All

1. Theism1. TheismBasic Beliefs:Basic Beliefs: God created the world (He is Transcendent).God created the world (He is Transcendent). God does not sustain the world (He is Immanent). God does not sustain the world (He is Immanent). God does miracles.God does miracles.Proponents:Proponents: JudaismJudaism IslamIslam ChristianityChristianity AugustineAugustine AnselmAnselm AquinasAquinas C. S. LewisC. S. Lewis

Deism:Deism: God is beyond God is beyond the World but not in Itthe World but not in It

2. Deism2. DeismBasic Beliefs:Basic Beliefs: God created the world (He is Transcendent).God created the world (He is Transcendent). God does not sustain the world (He is not God does not sustain the world (He is not

Immanent). Immanent). God does not do miracles.God does not do miracles.Proponents:Proponents: Francois-Marie VoltaireFrancois-Marie Voltaire

John TolandJohn TolandThomas JeffersonThomas JeffersonThomas PaineThomas Paine

Finite Godism:Finite Godism: GodGod is beyond is beyond world but is world but is limitedlimited in power in power

and/or and/or perfectionperfection

3. Finite Godism3. Finite GodismBasic 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/or perfectionEvil shows God is limited in power and/or perfection God does not do miraclesGod does not do miraclesProponents:Proponents: PlatoPlato John Stewart MillJohn Stewart Mill William JamesWilliam James Rabi KushnerRabi Kushner

Atheism:Atheism: No God at AllNo God at All

4. Atheism4. AtheismBasic 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 projectionProponents: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 are There are many finite godsmany finite gods. .

Three Major World ViewsThree Major World Views

Theism Theism Pantheism Atheism Pantheism AtheismGod 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 versus Theism versus DeismDeismBeyond WorldBeyond World Beyond world Beyond world& in the world& in the world & not in the world & not in the world

Problem:Problem: God did the big miracle God 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 Finite Finite

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 (in So, God would need a Cause (in which case He would not be God which case He would not be God but a creature).but a creature).

Theism vs. Finite GodismTheism vs. Finite Godism InfiniteInfinite Finite Finite

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 (in 3. No guarantee of victory over evil (in which case evil is more ultimate which case evil is more ultimate

than good). than good).

Theism vs. AtheismTheism vs. Atheism God eGod existsxists No God exists No 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. AtheismGod eGod existsxistsNo God exists No 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 it 2. There is strong evidence against it (cosmological, teleological, and (cosmological, teleological, and

moral arguments). moral arguments).

Theism Theism versusversus Pantheism PantheismGod made all God is allGod made all God is allI am not GodI am not God I am God I am GodEvil is realEvil is real Evil isn’t real Evil isn’t real

. .

Problems with Pantheism:Problems with Pantheism: 1. It denies sense experience, yet

uses it to find and share truth.

Problems with Problems 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 with Problems 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 with Problems with Pantheism:Pantheism: 3. It recognizes the existence of

opposing views are yet claims they are an illusion.

Theism vs. PolytheismTheism vs. Polytheism One One GodGod Many Gods Many Gods Infinite Infinite Finite Finite

Problems:Problems: 1. Every finite needs and infinite 1. Every finite needs and infinite Cause (So, Polytheistic gods need Cause (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 Monopolar Monopolar Bipolar Bipolar No parts No parts PartsParts Infinite Infinite FiniteFinite Independent Independent DependentDependent Absolutely perfect Absolutely perfect Not perfectNot perfect Unchanging Unchanging 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 dependent 2. 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 dependent 2. God and world are mutually dependent

which is impossible.which is impossible.3. God is changing which is not possible 3. God is changing which is not possible without an unchanging basis for without an unchanging basis for

change (which would be more ultimate change (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 dependent 2. God and world are mutually dependent

which is impossible.which is impossible.3. God is changing which is not possible 3. God is changing which is not possible

without an unchanging basis for without an unchanging basis for change change (which would be more ultimate than God).(which would be more ultimate than God).

4. God is not perfect (which demands a 4. 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 Panentheism5. 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 a c. It is annihilation/recreation without a

Creator to do the recreation. Creator to do the recreation.

The Problems with PanentheismThe Problems with Panentheism5. 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 a c. 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 a In 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”

The Battle for GodThe Battle for God

Theism versus NeotheismTheism versus NeotheismSimilaritiesSimilaritiesGod is infiniteGod is infiniteGod is uncausedGod is uncausedGod is necessaryGod is necessary

DifferencesDifferencesSimpleSimple ComplexComplexUnchangeableUnchangeable ChangeableChangeableNon-temporalNon-temporal TemporalTemporalOmniscientOmniscient Not omniscientNot omniscient

Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism1. 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 have 3. But an infinite being can’t have

parts.parts. a.a. Everything with parts can Everything with parts can

have more parts.have more parts.b. But there cannot be more b. But there cannot be more

than an infinite. than an infinite. c. Hence, an infinite Being c. 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, part a. In all accidental change, part remains and part does remains and part does

not.*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 goes In substantial change, the being goes out of existence. But they agree God is out of existence. But they agree God is a Necessary Being and can’t go out of a 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 no 2. 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 cannot 3. But what has no potentiality cannot

change in its Being, for change is change in its Being, for change is the actualization of a potentiality.the actualization of a potentiality.

Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism1. They claim God is temporal.1. They claim God is temporal.2. But what is temporal undergoes 2. 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 a. Change moves from potency to act. act.

b. And no potency can actualize b. And no potency can actualize itself. itself. 5. But neotheists believe God is 5. But neotheists believe God is

uncaused.uncaused.6. Hence, neotheism is inconsistent. 6. Hence, neotheism is inconsistent.

Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism1. They claim God does not know 1. 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 future free acts for sure (Acts 2:23; 2:23;

Jn. 10:17-18; Isa. 46:10). Jn. 10:17-18; Isa. 46:10).

Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism1. They claim the Bible is infallible.1. They claim the Bible is infallible.2. Yet they believe the Bible makes 2. Yet they believe the Bible makes

predictions about free actions predictions about free actions (which would be fallible).(which would be fallible).

Inconsistencies of NeotheismInconsistencies of Neotheism1. They claim God can’t know the 1. They claim God can’t know the

future for sure.future for sure.2. Yet they believe God will defeat evil 2. Yet they believe God will defeat evil

in the end.in the end.

Some Errors of NeotheismSome Errors of Neotheism

1. Confusing God’s 1. Confusing God’s naturenature and and activityactivity. . (What God(What God isis and what God and what God doesdoes) ) a. God is eternal, but He acts in a. God is eternal, but He acts in

time.time.b. God is unchanging, but He b. God is unchanging, but He

produces change in things produces change in things..2. Assuming God’s2. Assuming God’s nature nature changes changes

because Hisbecause His relationshipsrelationships do. do.a.a. The person changes in relation The person changes in relation

to the pillar, but– to the pillar, but– b.b. The pillar does not change in The 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 the declaring the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10).beginning” (Isa. 46:10).

The EndThe End

For More InformationFor More InformationOn 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. Uncausality 1. Uncausality 2. Infinity2. Infinity3. Independence3. Independence4. Necessity4. Necessity5. 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 irreducible b. But whatever has irreducible

complexity is caused. complexity is caused. c. Therefore, God does not have c. 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 Being God is an infinite Being b. But an infinite can’t have b. But an infinite can’t have

parts parts 1) Whatever has parts can 1) Whatever has parts can

have more parts.have more parts.2) But there cannot be more 2) 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 Independencea. God is an Independent a. God is an Independent

Being.Being.b. Whatever is composed is b. Whatever is composed is

dependent on another dependent on another who who composed it.composed it.

c.c. Hence, God is not Hence, God is not composed. composed.

Arguments for Simplicity:Arguments for Simplicity:

4. Argument from God’s 4. Argument from God’s NecessityNecessity

a. A Necessary Being has not a. A Necessary Being has not potentiality (not to exist).potentiality (not to exist).

b.b. What has no potentiality What has no potentiality cannot be composed.cannot be composed.

c.c. Hence, God has no Hence, God has no composition.composition.

Arguments for Simplicity:Arguments for Simplicity:

5. Argument from God’s Unity5. Argument from God’s Unitya.a. God has only one essenceGod has only one essence 1. There is a plurality of 1. There is a plurality of

persons, but-- persons, but-- 2. A unity of essence in 2. A unity of essence in

God.God.b.b. What has parts, has What has parts, has

plurality plurality in its essence.in its essence.c.c. Hence, God has no parts.Hence, God has no parts.

Objections to God’s Objections 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 from It 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 Trinity The Trinity denies absolute simplicity of God.denies absolute simplicity of God.

Response:Response:1.1. This confuses This confuses essenceessence and and

personspersons in God. in God.2.2. There is only There is only one essenceone essence, yet , yet

there are there are three personsthree persons in in God.God.

Theological Objection 2:Theological Objection 2: God has many God has many attributes. But all members of the attributes. But all members of the Trinity are identical to the same Trinity are identical to the same essence. Hence, they are the same.essence. Hence, they are the same.Response:Response: This confuses identity of This confuses identity of objectobject and identity of and identity of meaning.meaning.

1. All member of the Trinity are 1. All member of the Trinity are identical to the same object identical to the same object

(thing);(thing); 2. Yet their meaning implies an 2. Yet their meaning implies an opposing relation (e.g., same road opposing relation (e.g., same road between two cities does not mean they between 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 intelligibleResponse:Response:1. It can’t be denied unless it is 1. It can’t be denied unless it is

understood. understood.2. It is apprehended, even if not 2. It is apprehended, even if not

comprehended. comprehended.3. It is no more difficult to 3. It is no more difficult to

understand than infinity or understand than infinity or uncausality which they uncausality which they

claim to claim to understand. understand.

Philosophical Objection 2:Philosophical Objection 2: Simplicity is not intelligibleSimplicity is not intelligibleResponse:Response:

1. It can’t be denied unless it is 1. It can’t be denied unless it is understood. understood.

2. It can be apprehend, even if not 2. It can be apprehend, even if not comprehended. comprehended.

3. It is no more difficult to understand 3. 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-

igible igible in itselfin itself (e.g., a square (e.g., a square circle).circle).

Philosophical Objection 3Philosophical Objection 3:: If God is If God is simple, then all properties are simple, then all properties are

identical. But they are not. identical. But they are not.Response:Response:1. God’s many attributes are not the 1. God’s many attributes are not the

same. same.2. Rather, the same God has many 2. Rather, the same God has many

attributes. attributes.3. God has many names, since no 3. 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 is If God is identical to His properties, then He identical to His properties, then He is is a property (= abstract object), a property (= abstract object), not a not a concrete person. But He concrete person. But He is personal. is personal. Response:Response:1. This wrongly assumed they are 1. This wrongly assumed they are

predicated of God univocally (not predicated of God univocally (not analogically). analogically).2. This assumes the platonic view that 2. This assumes the platonic view that

properties exist apart from things. properties exist apart from things.