Philosophy 3

Non naturalism indeed attempts to explain reality, truth and knowledge, however their explanations are flawed.
For instance, non naturalists believe that all reality is supernatural, in essence that everything is God. Non naturalism teaches that everything is ultimately spiritual and not material, including ourselves. Spangler expands on this philosophy and how it "encourages us to treat all things not only as ourselves, as the holistic view would see it, but as honored and precious manifestations of God" (UTT 115). However, this philosophy is flawed because non naturalists do not specify exactly what the God force is made up of. This view that we ourselves are God seems a bit selfish and prideful. One would not be able to live a truly humble and purposeful life if they regarded themselves as God and did not know the substance that made up the God force they were apart of.
Secondly, non naturalists claim that it is when we look inside ourselves that we can have truth. However, the non naturalist's definition of truth is relative. Their definition of truth is whatever feels like truth to you is truth. If people chose to live in such relativity, it would be unable to govern the universe by some sort of justice or moral law because each person's concept of true justice or moral would be relative.
Finally, non naturalists claim that all knowledge is found in the God force we are apart of, so if we can encounter that power within ourselves we can be exposed to all of the God force's knowledge. In fact, non naturalist Jack Underhill states that if everyone were able to connect to the God force within them, "They [could] turn off the sun and turn it back on" (UTT 115). To believe in a power that could destroy the world without even knowing the substance that makes up the power prohibits one to prove non naturalism logically.

Philosophy 2

Naturalism claims that there is no supernatural, there is only the natural or things that are material. According to naturalists, God, our souls, and our personality do not exist. For the naturalist, something must be observable and measurable to be believable. Though naturalists believe in the "growth of knowledge," they refuse to recognize that the universe has too much design because that would suggest a Creator or a Designer.
Conversely, dialectical materialism states that "in everything there is a thesis (the way things are) and an antithesis (an opposition to the way things are), which must inevitably clash. The result of the struggle and merging that comes from the clash is the synthesis, which becomes the new thesis. This new thesis will eventually attract another antithesis, and produce a new synthesis" (UTT). Dialectical materialism states that everything should be viewed as a complex evolutionary process, a process resulting from the clash of the theses and antitheses. Yet wouldn't this complex design of life point to a Creator who began it all? Dialectical materialism is "an entire method for viewing the world" (UTT).

Philosophy 1

The Humanist Worldview states that matter is the only thing that exists and that the supernatural does not exist. They believe that anything claiming to be reality has to be proved by science. However, this brings up an interesting question: "Does the mind exist solely within nature, just as the body does, or is the mind more than matter?" (UTT). Indeed, Humanists believe that the personality or soul is merely a manifestation of the mind and is no more that a network of matter. Yet to accept this view, one must deny life after death because mere matter won't be able to survive death. As our UTT book states, "[This] worldview may seem to elevate our importance in terms of our ability to control our fate. However, this responsibility becomes a burden resulting in a pessimistic view, for without God or an eternal soul, we are left without hope or purpose in life." What an empty thought.
Secondly, Humanists claim, "Nature is but an endless series of efficient causes. She cannot create but she eternally transforms. There was no beginning and there can be no end" (Carl Sagan, UTT). They say that the universe is the result of mere causes, and refuse to believe in a supreme being who created the earth. However, the Anthropic principle brings up an interesting point, even among scientists. It states that 1. Conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist; and 2. The universe must have properties that make inevitable the existence of intelligent life. This is very interesting because it points to the fact that science has proven that the universe must have been designed for man to live in. This all points to an all powerful God, and rejects the Humanist concept of truth that the universe was created by chance out of matter.
Finally, the Humanist worldview is based on the concept of a "growing knowledge" regarding man and the world. They say that "an object [must] be observable and measurable to be believable" (UTT). Yet Humanists contradict themselves. Indeed, "belief in science as the ultimate means to knowledge (truth) requires as much faith as belief in the existence and truth of the supernatural" (UTT). I would rather place my faith in an all powerful and loving God who has a plan for my life!

Theology #2

The first thing I would do after listening to their argument would be to ask Mark and Sarah how they can explain all of creation. The intricacies of humans, nature, and the universe are all too extreme to be deemed as coming from nothing. I would also refer to all of the problems regarding evolution and how it has been disproven in many cases. Perhaps Mark and Sarah would learn about various flaws in evolution that they had never heard before! Also, I would ask them what our purpose is if there is not a personal God who created us. If there is not a God who loves us and has a specific plan and purpose for our lives, what is the reason for existence?
Furthermore, I would inquire why a vast majority of people around the world feel they do have a need for God. As we look at history, civilizations usually have a god or gods whom they worship and devout their whole lives to. Obviously, many people feel this need for God-shouldn't this raise the question that perhaps we were created by God and he so desparately wants to be the Lord of our lives? How can we "get past our need" for God? As we look at the world, I believe the attempt to feel up the void that is left when we reject God is responsible for the need many people feel for material goods.
After listening to their responses, I would present the gospel, and share with Mark and Sarah how we indeed to have a personal Savior who forgives our sins and loves us unconditionally! It makes so much more sense to believe in the one true God! If they were willing, I would continue to dive deep into the scriptures to reveal God's truth about all areas of life to them.

Theology #1

The first thing I noticed throughout the video was that the speaker seemed to contradict himself on some of his points.
First of all, he contradicts himself as he says "The All could never fully be understood, because it is ultimately unknowable," and also says that when we truly understand the "All," it will be our greatest epiphany. I would respond to this statement by pointing out that his logic is contradictory. I would then proceed to ask why we should believe something that is said to be ultimately unknowable? And how can seeking after this All be our greatest epiphany if it is ultimately unknowable?
Secondly, the speaker says that each person and thing is the All. If we were the All, wouldn't we know it already somehow? The speaker defines the Forever All (is this separate from the All?) as an inescapable system of profound order which remains forever balanced and conserved. How does this apply to human beings? He seems very vague in his definition. He says there is evidence all around us of the All. I would ask him to be specific.
Thirdly, the speaker says that the All is indestructible, so therefore we are indestructible and move from one life to the next forever. Yet he also says the All is the ultimate kingdom, and the kingdom is truly me. How can we reach an "ultimate kingdom" if we move from one life to the next forever? I would point out how this is contradictory as well.
I would present these questions to the speaker respectfully and listen to his responses. Then, I would present to him the Kalam Cosmological Argument, challenging his conception of the All. Then, if he was willing, I would tell him the good news of Jesus Christ: that we are sinners, but we are saved by the blood, and we have a Personal God we can believe in and trust and learn more about in His Word, rather than try to formulate theories about an impersonal "All."