Worldview Essay

David Kim
As you read through this paper, I will try to the best of my abilities unravel the reasoning behind
all of my actions and choices. My worldview is very simple and straightforward, not super
demanding, but very fulfilling to me. The bible is my guideline to life, christianity is a worldview
that is circumference around the bible, and the redeeming powers of God and Jesus the Son of
God. The scriptures prompt you to live in a specific way, but those are just guidelines to living a
life with purpose, opposed to the here and now mentality that society has been pushing. Living
the way Jesus advised us to lives was not to make us miserable but to set us free from the
bondage of the world and give us a path to heaven. The bible, is a giant storybook, and the
author/maker is a poetic romancer, deeply in love with His creations, God, who made this
storybook to create a relationship with his creations, us, Mankind.

I am young and inexperienced with the ways and knowledge of life, and for the entirety of the
time I have been alive, I have been a christian, but it wasnt really a faith that was mine, I just
went along with what everyone else around me seemed to believe. There seemed to be
something about christianity that stuck out, a fulfillment and contentment, happiness, and i
wanted that. I have dedicated my life to a book, the Bible. And throughout my lifetime I have
pondered some pretty deep questions, all falling under a few specific topics: Origins, Meaning,
Morality, and Destiny. These are believed to be the fundamental points that a worldview seeks
to answer, and the more I look into the bible, and the more I build a relationship with God, the
more I am content with the unknown. I do not believe that humanity is capable of knowing all
things, that's in the hands of the Maker. However i do believe that there are answers to each
question we have, and that as I have slowly begun to understand the viewpoints of other
worldviews, that christianity is the one that is consistent in the answers, not always satisfying
but nonetheless consistent. Not a single worldview can answer all the questions to life without

some doubt and expect everyone to be pleased, but with christianity I feel as though there is a
constant theme, and although complex and almost thought to be unachievable knowledge, it is
simple in the same way. The theme to all the answers, the keystone in the archway of life, is that
there is a loving, merciful, and intentional designer that created everything and has the answers
to everything, and through Him all things can be revealed, whether it is here or in heaven. Even
Isaac Newton, one of the greatest thinkers in the history of the world said this: I do not know
what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the
seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell
than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. I believe in
christianity due to the consistent connection between the scientific knowledge being revealed to
daily, and the biblical teachings of the holy book christianity is based upon. In this paper I will
discuss five points, the first point is the validity of the Bible, if it is the basis of what I believe then
there should be some reasoning to back up my faith in the bible. The second point is origins
where I will put forth arguments that both refute evolution and point to intelligent design.
Meaning is the third point, in this point I will be discussing some of what the Bible says on the
topic of man's purpose. In the fourth section I will be discussing morality and some proof that
there is moral laws. Finally I will be discussing destiny where I will talk about what occurs
beyond this life.

Validity of the Bible

When attacking the christian faith, a common and straightforward argument is the validity of the
bible, whether or not the bible is just a false book of teachings or the truth. Historically speaking

people often see the bible as a corrupted book due to the authors of each book writing from
different times and places. The New Testament is the primary historical for information about
Jesus, which for me and any other christian is a major factor in the values of our faith, since
Jesus life and actions is the defining borderline between being a follower of Christ or not. The
gospels were not written that long after Jesus left the earth, at the very most sixty years, this
means that many who were eyewitnesses to these accounts were still alive as they were
circulating. In fact, the gospels acknowledge this, mentioning people who are not relevant to the
plot but who would be known by the readers, in Mark 15:21:
And they compelled one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the
father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
By including Alexander and Rufus he is essentially saying that there were witnesses, and if you
do not believe me, there were others who saw. Paul, though not a gospel writer, also uses
eyewitnesses as proof of his words when he refers to the body of 500 witnesses.
Other critics often elude to the idea that Jesus disciples were creating a myth to gain power.
The question posed against that argument is a simple one, Who would die for a lie?
The radically changed lives of these men give us solid testimony for the validity of Christ's
claims.
Since the Christian faith is historical, our knowledge of it must heavily rely on testimony,
both written and oral. Without such testimony , we have no window to any historical event,
Christian or otherwise. In fact, all history is essentially a knowledge of the past based on
testimony. If reliance on such testimony seems to give history too shaky a foundation, we must
ask How else can we learn of the past? How can we know that Napoleon lived? None of us was
in his time period. We didnt see him or meet him. We must rely on testimony. (Mcdowell, 89)
The coherent issue, is if the testimonies are reliable. I have no doubt that these are reliable.
They gained little to none benefits on the earth while proclaiming Jesus and the gospel, and
eleven of them died martyrs for standing firm in what the believed to be two fundamental truths:

Jesus deity and his resurrection, these men did not die a painless death either, they suffered
greatly before the times of their deaths and yet still proclaimed Jesus. So what? I mean, many
people have died for a lie, so what makes them any different? People who die for something
that is a lie, truly have to believe that it is the truth, otherwise human natures instinct to survive
would not accept it. what was the case with the disciples? If the resurrection did not happen,
obviously the disciples would have known it. I can find no way these particular men could have
been deceived. Therefore they not only would have died for a lie - heres the catch - but they
would have known it was a lie. It would be hard to find a group of men anywhere in history who
would die for a lie if they knew it was a lie. (Mcdowell, 90) Just on the evidence of the radical
turn of the disciples lives and perspectives, that was influenced by a single man, in its own is a
feat that cannot be ignored. I personally am blown away by the impact a single man made, and i
am convinced that it is the truth not only on faith but through example like the disciples, who
died for a greater cause, that they KNEW to be the truth. That is why i believe in Jesus, and the
validity of the bible, because people sacrificed their lives to get the message across to
everyone, even people like me, and if they are willing to go to such extent, I have to believe that
they did so wanting to give us the message truthfully. There is tons of scientific, and historical
evidences supporting the bible, jesus, and christianity in general, but youll hear plenty of that in
the upcoming points.

Origin
I would say that I am a young earth creationist, meaning that I believe that an all powerful being
that is infinitely ancient created the universe less than 10,000 years ago. The creator of the
universe, the intelligent designer behind everything, is the God of the bible. In coherence with
the bible, I believe that the earth and all its wonders was created in a literal six days. Intelligent

design in today's age is an insult to evolutionists and scientists. However for me, the more I look
into the sciences, the more detail, and complexity I witness, included with my biblical
background, it only supports even more the thought and belief of an intelligent designer over the
evolutionists views of chance, which statistically speaking, are really, really, really, really low.
The theory of natural selection laid out by darwin are correct, they do not however
operate to the extent that he proposed. In order for his proposed macro-evolution to be true
there would have to be a way of gaining information, if there were proof of the net gain of
information then evolution would have overcome one of its biggest problems. Evolution requires
a very small amount of information to grow into a large amount. In nature, when we see
change, but it is always the opposite that happens, for example, a population of dogs have the
genetic information for short hair, medium hair and long hair, during a long cold spell all of the
medium and short haired dogs die, leaving only those with long hair. The population suffers a
net loss because only the genetic information for the long haired dogs survives. There was a
change in the population but this came about as a result of a loss of information, not a gain, and
should a heat wave come it is possible that the population would not survive. This is the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the law of entropy. This only supports the bible and its
teachings on the creation of the universe. Because antithetical to the ways of evolution, the
earth was created perfect,
in Genesis 1:31 it says: `` God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.``
and having a perfect God proclaim that something is good proves to me that the
universe and all its wonders had to have been perfect at one point. However since the fall of
man, there had to be death, and death happens with age, and the breakdown of cells and failure
of the body to perform its functions. Perfection, the fall, and then from that point, entropy. For
scientists to deny this natural law of nature would be to deny science itself. Let's put evolution
into perspective, a giant explosion happened from absolutely nothing, from that massive
explosion, which explosions have been tested to be destructive, the earth and everything was

created, by random chance, and we evolved from nothing to humans. Stupid to smart. This
brings me to the egyptians, who created unexplainably amazing creations. How is it that an
ancient group of people, capable of cutting edges straighter and more precise than lasers and
all of current day's technology, lifting stones that even our great cranes could not lift, and making
the unthinkable possible, prove that we are increasing in knowledge. That makes no sense. The
amount of people who are handicapped and have genetic disorders in percentage is much
higher than even 100 years ago. Even with increasing health support and ways to care for them,
it does not explain the `coincidence``that we are getting dumber, and much stupid.
This all to say that I personally see in no way how the complexities of the world could
have been random, and that there has to be a greater, intelligent designer, that seems to
coincide with the biblical understanding of God. In Josh Mcdowell's book More than a
Carpenter he explains the flaw in science with history quite well. ``We cannot scientifically prove
anything about any person or event in history, but that doesn't mean that proof is impossible.
We need to understand the difference between scientific proof and what I call legal-historical
proof. Let me explain.
Scientific Proof is based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event in
the presence of the person questioning the fact. It is done in a controlled environment where
observations can be made, data drawn , and hypotheses empirically verified If the scientific
method were the only method we had for proving facts, you couldn't prove that you watched
television last night or that you had lunch today. There's no way you could repeat those events
in a controlled situation.
The other method of proof the Legal-historical proof, is based on showing that something
is a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, we reach a verdict on the weight of the
evidence and have no rational basis for doubting the decisions. Legal-historical proof depends
on three kinds of testimony: oral testimony, written testimony, and exhibits (such as guns, a
bullet, or a notebook). Using the legal-historical method to determine facts, you could prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that you went to lunch today. Your friends saw you there, the waiter
remembered seeing you, and you have the restaurant receipt
The scientific method can be used to prove only repeatable things. It isn't adequate for
proving or disproving questions about persons or events in history.`` (Mcdowell, 42-44)
Just as you may not be able to prove God and his existence any other view of origin is unable to
recreate such an event, and therefore take it on faith that, that is how creation happened, and i
just happened to find it very convincing that a loving creator, made the universe.

Meaning
I draw my sense of meaning from the bible, one verse in particular stands out in my mind:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit. - Matthew 28:19 (NIV)
This was Jesus final command to his disciples before he ascended and I believe that it is his
command for all who call themselves his followers. This commission is a fairly broad statement,
one that can be carried out in all aspects of our lives, a fact that carries weight and is a
challenge for all of Christ's followers. I believe that this commission is best served by living out
every aspect of our lives in a way that points to christ,
Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not working for human
masters -Colossians 3:23 (NIV)
Although I believe that this is probably the most important aspect of a relationship with Christ, I
find that so often I fail miserably at living it out. I believe that living out this final commission of
Christ, when done well, is also the best way to reach those who are not christians and convert
them. I believe this especially in contrast to trying to win converts by debating and arguing,
(though these arguments also have their place). I believe this because I do not believe that a

logical argument for christianity will convert more than a few people, if this were true I think that
a great deal more people would be christians. Logic rarely convinces anyone to change their
view of a problem, the only way to convince people that christianity is better is to show it to them
by living out the great commission. There is a great longing in everyone for acceptance and
love, some find a temporary solution but are always wanting more, and some find God, and
reach a contentment, a peace that passes understanding. To create a relationship so great that
you do every action out of love and trust, and not for fire insurance.

Morality
Along with all my other views, it all relates back to God, and biblical teachings. one of the
reasons for this is that I find that morality not based around a divine being to be unfounded. If
there is no God then there is no logical basis for moral truths, and yet, morality is something that
we all know. For example, even those who claim that morality is relative reveal that they do not
actually believe so by their reactions to wrongs committed against them. In his book Mere
Christianity C.S. Lewis calls this knowledge of right and wrong the law of nature or the law of
human nature and he relates it to other natural laws such as the law of gravity with the
difference being that the law of human nature is the only law that we can choose whether or not
to follow. His evidence for this law comes through the examination of how people argue and
quarrel, when someone does something wrong to someone else and it is pointed out he will
surely make an excuse for what hes done, exempting him in this particular situation from being
in the wrong. If there were in fact no standard that both parties knew, he would have no need to
justify his actions. If there were no universal standard then people could not really argue about
anything because arguments are based around proving that the other party is wrong, if there is

no standard to argue against, all quarreling becomes pointless. Which is a very postmodern way
of thinking.
People would argue that our morality has evolved as a result of the culture that we live
in, that our culture determines our sense of right and wrong. Though this is true to a certain
extent, if this were truly the case we would expect to see a vast difference in the morality of past
civilizations. There have of course been differences but nothing that amounts to a total
difference. For example, humanity has never admired those who ran away in battle or been
proud of those who double-crossed others, or went back on their word. People have had
different perspectives on whom they should be unselfish to but total selfishness has never been
admired. Even today we can see this, a country may say that treaties dont matter but after
having broken one they will make up an excuse or say that the treaty was unfair. If there is no
right or wrong then there is no difference between a fair and an unfair treaty, by making excuses
they have shown their hand that they do indeed know the law of nature. It is like C.S. Lewis
says:
If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not
having behaved decently?

With the idea in mind that we all know the law of human nature it does not take much
examination of one's own life to realize that we have broken the law, and do not live up to the
expectations that we place on others. I believe that the only logical source for the law of nature
is God, and since we have all broken that law, we need Jesus to achieve salvation. (Lewis,
C.S.)

Destiny

Destiny is a topic in which there is far more speculation than actual proof of any particular point
of view, seeing as I have put the effort into defending the bible and I believe it to be true I will
take the biblical view of destiny. The biblical view of destiny is that at the end of times people
will be judged for their actions and those who have accepted the forgiveness of God through
Jesus Christ will be admitted to heaven, and those who did not will be sentenced to eternity in
hell. One of the problems that people have with the christian view is the seeming paradox
between a God who is merciful and loving but would also condemn someone to eternal
damnation, this is a problem for many christians as well. One common answer to this problem
is that God doesnt send people hell, we choose to go to hell if we do not accept his sacrifice for
us. It is as in a court case, picture this, you are a criminal who has been sentenced to a
punishment, someone offers to receive the punishment instead of you and the judge will punish
that person instead, if you choose not to let that person be punished for you then it is neither the
judge nor the persons fault, the blame lands solely on you for choosing not to accept their
sacrifice. It is the same with hell, if we choose not to accepts Jesus sacrifice for us on the cross
then it is no ones fault but our own, God has already done all that he can to save us, all we have
to do is accept it. C.S Lewis also makes this point in his book, the Great Divorce, in the book
there is a conversation between a murderer and a man who knew him, the murderer is in
heaven and the other man is in hell, through the conversation Lewis shows that although the
murderer had committed a horrible crime in his despair afterwards he was able to humble
himself and realize and accept what Christ had done for him. The other man on the other hand
had lived an apparently good life, and he would not accept the charity of others if he wanted a
drink he paid for it himself, as he put it. This mindset of not accepting charity was his downfall,
he was too proud to accept that he needed the cross to be saved and although he committed no
horrible crime from a worldly perspective, that pride was enough to save him a place in hell.
Through this conversation and a series of others Lewis makes the point that in some way or
another the people who end up in hell are there because they cannot accept the sacrifice of

Jesus, and that is true, if you cannot humble yourself you cannot enter heaven. Matthew 18:3,
Unless you become like little children you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Lewis, C.S.)
I truly believe that Christ has given us this chance to enter His kingdom, and its not
demanding, and costs nothing, but your belief, your trust. But once you're truly trusting
something, you act out on it, not out of selfish ambitions or admission of something that is
already given, but out of love.
This is my Worldview in a nutshell, a big nutshell. But the information that could be given
is endless. God and the biblical teachings have proven to be the most consistent in comparison
to the other worldviews with the ways of the world. And in no cases have I ever had an
explanation for general and special revelation without God, beauty and creation, the complexity
behind it all, the love and warm fuzzy feeling when you do something that is morally right and
coherent with the bible there is no other worldview that describes all the feelings besides God,
and so this is my declaration that i believe in God, and God is all I want and need.
Side note. Thanks for teaching this class, i really enjoyed it. It took my understanding of
the bible and other worldviews to a whole new level, and because of that only gives me more
reason to believe in the bible. Great Class. Anywho, you and this class are much appreciated.

Bibliography:
1. McDowell, J. (1977). More than a carpenter. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House.
2. The Bible
3. Lewis, C. S. (2001). Mere Christianity: A revised and amplified edition, with a new
introduction, of the three books, Broadcast talks, Christian behaviour, and Beyond
personality. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
4. Noebel, D. A. (2015). Understanding the times. Manitou Springs, CO: Summit
Press.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Lewis, C.S. Christian Reflections, Walter Hooper, ed. Eerdmans, 1967, p. 155
Lewis, C. S. The Great Divorce. New York: Macmillan, 1946. Print.
Guedes.
My Brain

Philosophy of Man Essay:

Worldview
David Kim