oddXian: Challenge the Consensus

Christians are commanded to take every thought captive, so I developed a rationale that harmonizes young and old earth perspectives. This is intended to demonstrate an additional viewpoint for those seeking to reconcile scientific evidence while staying faithful to God's Word. With the frame of reference and primary authoritative source of truth for reality as the Bible and modern science as a secondary source, I propose that there is  empirical  and scientific evidence supporting that the earth is both young and old, depending on the observer’s frame of reference. I do not assume  the present is the best interpretive framework for distant past events. Personal experience has given me confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible and that God is  logically omnipotent  and not bound by natural laws (supernatural). The Biblical historical record evidence is that the earth is young, according to the frame of reference of the observer. Modern science has provided e...

Modern Biblical Christians are forced by popular culture to face this question: Could God have created the universe using the natural (I.e., time, space, energy, and matter) processes He developed in a way that meets modern scientific observations and still aligns to the literal 6 day Biblical narrative? Biblical Christians believe that God is, by inherent nature, logical but also not bound by natural human perspectives and wisdom. 1 Corinthians 3:19a For the wisdom of this world is folly with God Therefore, Biblical Christians have a responsibility to be skeptical of any scientific framework that implicitly or explicitly denies the Biblical Creator-God. Thus, we subjugate all scientific observations to the greater standard of Biblical Science. The branch of Biblical Science that deals with the observation and explanation of natural components is characterized here as Biblical Creation Science (BCS).  BCS is essentially Natural Science with the foundational axiomatic assumption tha...

I am happy to engage in discussions and debates, but I will only do so with those who demonstrate a reasonable and respectful attitude. Constructive dialogue requires mutual respect and a willingness to listen, so I kindly ask that we approach these conversations with that mindset.

First off, without an ultimately good God as an objective moral and teleological absolute, meaning and morality are subjective, so the foundational proposition of the Epicurean Paradox, “evil exists”, is objectively illogical. However if God necessarily exists and is objectively and ultimately good, then evil must serve some objectively necessarily and ultimately good purpose. That is, evil is logically necessary for God’s good purpose. To wit:  P1: All that exists serves God’s good purpose  P2: Evil exists C1: Evil serves God’s good purpose  Which, in turn, logically and necessarily begs the question, what is God’s good purpose? The Biblical Christian worldview supplies the framework for the most logical, intelligible, and cohesive understanding of God’s good purpose, the role of humans within it and the logical necessity of evil:  A good and loving Creator-Father purposed to glorify His Son as the Judge and Savior of a Creature (Mankind) to whom He has imparted an ...