How is a worldview to be tested? Three ways are logical consistency (as we discussed), empirical adequacy (does it match what we sense), and existential relevance (does it actually affect how we live?). To study the worldview adequately, we must employ several disciplines: theology, metaphysics (ontology, cosmology/cosmogony, epistemology), ethics, and anthropology.

What follows in the next several posts is not a systematic breakdown of any one of these disciplines alone. It is merely a presentation of reality as I understand it after inductively weighing the evidence in its support. You may ask, “What–are you an expert in all the worldviews across our planet?” My answer is no, I cannot hope to learn all the information available, but if I can break them down into categories, and evaluate them from there I can, through process of elimination, find those worth building inductive cases for. These categories are: 1) only the supernatural exists, 2) only the natural exists, and 3) both the supernatural and natural exist. (Much of the categorical terminology here I’ve derived from Ravi Zacharias, whose ministries (RZIM) can provide further counsel.)