Friday, January 12, 2024
Sunday, January 7, 2024
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 that all nature originates from an Intelligence best revealed in the Bible. BCS is contrasted with the currently reigning worldview of Atheistic Natural Science (ANS, my shorthand label), whose foundational axiomatic assumption is that creation is the product of non-intelligent random chance and the interaction of fundamental natural components (time, space, energy, and matter).
BCS assumes God is the transcendent Master Developer and that the Creation program deployment occurred in six 24 hour stages:
Day 1 - the introduction of natural components:
- The heavens (space) and the motionless watery earth (matter)
- A supernatural source of illumination (light) and starting the earth’s spin (time and energy)
Day 2: Earth’s atmosphere (ocean and sky)
Day 3: dry land, other water formations, and initial organic life (plants)
Day 4: the Earth-observable universe
Day 5: water and air based organic life
Day 6: land based organic life and the special creation of Man
Both BCS and ANS axiomatically assumes that, after the special creation event, natural laws generally progress in a uniform, steady and predictable manner. However BCS, unlike ANS, does not obviate miraculous events, such as the Great Flood and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Unlike ANS, BCS does not assume the present is the most trustworthy way of interpreting the past.
An example of this is the assumptions of ANS cosmological, geological, and biological evolutionary theories which posit the necessity of homogenous uniformity of natural forces, particularly the requirement of the unchanging flow of vast quantities of time.
BCS assumes the natural component of time is malleable to God and the implicit/explicit assumption of homogenous steady-state time flow in all places and all times by predominant ANS evolutionary theories is false.
The Bible clearly states that human observations of God’s utilization of time are not perceptually equivalent (See Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8). And in Joshua 10 we are even given an example of God manipulating and slowing local time to accomplish His purpose while time progressed naturally external to the local area. The sun didn’t actually stand still, it was perceived that way by the local audience.
The Creation account is undeniably recorded from an “Earth local” perspective, so the unfolding of the observable universe would have looked like a 24 hour “fast forward” of the creation events outside that viewpoint. All natural components would have progressed in a way that meets current scientific observations, except the natural component of time was accelerated. Something very similar took place under the water cover of the Flood event to break up the monolithic land mass (I.e., Pangea) of Day 3.
This interpretive framework rebuts any argument that “the Universe is old or God is a deceiver” in favor of God being in full control of the natural forces He created as a part of His program.
God expects that Biblical Christians subordinate human wisdom to His Word. Therefore, we should subject all scientific observations and conclusions to this standard.
In other words, when ANS frameworks contradict BCS, faithful Christians should develop explanations that align with the Bible first, man’s wisdom second.
The universe is both old and young. It’s age is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.
Otherwise we are guilty of presuppositional capitulation.
God’s observations fundamentally shape reality.
Man’s does not.
If you’ve found this to be compelling or helpful, please share!
- My apologies, in advance if I don’t get to your particular comment; the replies are occasionally voluminous, so I am forced to “cherry pick”. I post these topics to defend and bolster faith with reason, engender lively debate, and for worldview comparison. I’m not here to convert you. That’s not my responsibility. My worldview is based on classical Reformed Theology, so please keep that in mind.
- I sometimes toss out some non-fully formed thoughts out into the marketplace of ideas to get an idea of objections or perspectives I may not have considered as I mature my thoughts and apologetics. IOW: I don’t mind someone pointing out if I am illogical, but…
- I tend to disregard ad hominem responses. Starting off with “you’re stupid” or “you’re a liar” won’t get me engaged. In fact, you’ll likely get ignored and not get to substantiate any good reasoning that follows with my participation. Echo chamber debates are not very productive.
- To deal with topics that engender a voluminous response, I look at comments that get either the most "up votes" or supporting comments, then work to respond to that commentor.
- Sadly, replying to comments has to fall sometimes to my greater priorities. My lack of response is likely me focusing on other things I deem higher priority and definitely not a tacit capitulation. I deny any claims of that, in advance. If you are respectful and reasonable, I will try my hardest to respond. If you’re a jerk, you become lowest priority and should refer to ground rule #1.
Wednesday, January 3, 2024
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 eternal spirit, moral awareness, and individual sentience. God purposed Mankind as the object of divine Law, Justice, Mercy, and Grace.
Mankind, as a morally aware and sentient being, committed evil by breaking God’s Law and initiated the process of God’s good purpose.
Those that are given ultimate Mercy and Grace will be glorified through Christ and enter into eternal communion with God and those that do not will receive the consequences of eternity separated from God’s Grace and Mercy, eternal Judgement.
God revealed and curated the truth of His good purpose over time by the Holy Spirit via the Bible; the Biblical Christian’s primary material (vs immaterial) authoritative source of truth.