My point is that, if someone believes in miracles, there are many who do, but numbers do not matter, then it is reasonable that Creation itself could have been a miracle. There is no self inconsistency in believing water to wine or nothing to the universe. All it says is that it sounds absurd if you take a certain view. I grant that belief can be called absurd, but not the beliefs that stem from that belief, and these could follow a rational train of thought.

And by the way, the date and time of creation is not supported in the text. There is a set of genealogies, if taken at face value, give date of about 6,000 years as far as I know. Projecting the date on the current calendar system and working backwards was certainly unwarranted and does neither science nor religion any favours.

The sounds pretty ridiculous to me. There might be a flying monster drinking from a teapot on Venus, but it sounds ridiculous to entertain it as a possibility

That is an excellent book, I have not read it, but it demonstrates the kind of frameworks that help the Christian and perhaps the scientist grapple with these issues, and indeed integrate them into his faith. The purpose of this discussion is to make a case for holding on to one's Christian faith and also integrating what is in the scientific body of knowledge, an informed, civil discussion.

You can gather from my comments what I can say explicitly, that I while I can be expected to be dismayed by attacks on the faith, mainly be Atheists, old and new, I am just as dismayed, maybe even more, by the irrational, non-theological as well as nonscientific treatment of the issue by Creationists. Has anyone read Henry Morris? Hugh Ross? Surely there is a way for people to speak without making themselves sound irrelevant, or a laughing stock for all humanity? Has anyone seen this?

They make good points, but there is a way to discuss this thing, without destroying the image of the Church.

If you begin with the position that the document was written by God, then you are forced to make sense out of it, even if it's jumbled nonsense. — Hanover

Indeed, so making sense of it has to be something like this: the thoughtful believer sits down with a pen and paper and uses the dimensions of the ark, the number of animals on board, the problem of the insects and so on, and has to come up with an answer that seems reasonable. One could simply say that one does not know, and to use the often-used exit strategy : "I will ask God when I get to heaven". Well then this raises an interesting question: The answer, as far as we can see now, is that "Yes. all the animals and creatures did fit on the ark" or "That was a story to illustrate the Providence of the Almighty"

The Answers in Genesis team gives an answer:. Still, making there is nothing inconsistent in saying one does not know. The calculations and assumptions could be right or wrong, in fact I could do a fact checking myself sometime.

Based on initial projections, the Ark Encounter team estimates that there were around 1,400 animal kinds on the ark. It is anticipated that future research may reduce that number even further.

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-all-animals-fit-ark/

"Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat"

" Something doesn't add up if you want to take this literally. Unless, of course, the base of the mountain is part of the mountain. " - Hanover

This is what I am interested in: what are the things that do not add up if you take them literally? How does one deal with these rationally?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208&version=NKJV

That is just the point. Believing in monsters on Venus is an option for the Monster Believing cult. We are not discussing this leap of faith. Granted, it is an extreme example that few if any would claim as a belief. What we are discussing is, given that someone believes in a monster on Venus, what are the self-contradictions we can find. Mind you, the religious traditions found here on earth are much more rational and sophisticated than fairy tales, and especially with the attempts at integration are quite flexible. I would be a comment on the entire human race that they believe in fairy tales, but that is a sociological or evolutionary issue that is outside the scope of this discussion.

I find this interesting. Of course, it does not include the dinosaurs. Or reptiles. Or maybe the mustard seed is not the smallest of seeds.

According to research published in the Journal of Mammalogy in 2018, the number of recognized mammal species is 6,495, including 96 recently extinct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

From other sources, there are about 10,000 reptiles. I have a way out though, I am not locked into proving the literal account to be true, in order to prove the inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy does need to be defined.

In the Catholic church they usually take a more allegorical stance. And if the Flood left the Ark on a mountain, the Flood would have to have flooded the world considering that the water would keep rushing into other regions

In your opinion, then, is the Catholic church's stance rational? Is it self-consistent?

The Catholic Church teaches “theistic evolution,” a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God’s existence or any divine role in creation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-evolution-idUSLG62672220080916

Also: (I will examine in detail later)

https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20081031_academy-sciences.html

Evolution is consistent with Catholic teaching and with it's methods of historical criticism when it comes to the Bible. I don't think Christian theology in general makes much literal sense but I was raised Catholic and am one culturally. Don't take my posts as those of a church going Catholic nevertheless. Regular Catholics believe they have a monopoly on truth and I don't believe what they believe in a literal sense

Referring to the above address, the following is found:

Thus the Magisterium of the Church has constantly affirmed that “every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not ‘produced’ by the parents – and also that it is immortal” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 366). This points to the distinctiveness of anthropology, and invites exploration of it by modern thought. — HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI October 2008

Why not have this teaching established not only at present, but the opinion is offered that this will be the stand for now and all possible future generations, unless the Church ceases to exist. This should be, I believe, the last stand of the Church which we should not ever retreat any further. There is no point in doing so.

Distinguished Academicians, I wish to conclude by recalling the words addressed to you by my predecessor Pope John Paul II in November 2003: “scientific truth, which is itself a participation in divine Truth, can help philosophy and theology to understand ever more fully the human person and God’s Revelation about man, a Revelation that is completed and perfected in Jesus Christ. For this important mutual enrichment in the search for the truth and the benefit of mankind, I am, with the whole Church, profoundly grateful”.

The only comment I make is that 'scientific truth'. although can help, often impedes and damages philosophy and theology and darkens our understanding of God. By "scientific truth" I mean the common consensus of the science of the day, which may or may not reflect reality and maybe a vehicle for the philosophical agenda of the scientists involved, a huge majority of whom are atheists.

If any mutual enrichment takes place, I am also, along with His Holiness, grateful, but if it does not. my gratitude will turn to something else.

My point is that, if someone believes in miracles, there are many who do, but numbers do not matter, then it is reasonable that Creation itself could have been a miracle. — FreeEmotion

If irrational things are rational, then can this irrational thing be rational? Certainly.

Correction: if someone believes that miracles happen, then they could believe that Creation was a miracle.

As for being irrational, what can I say? If a person believes irrationally that miracles happen, then they could believe that any number of miracles could have happened. The initial belief may be irrational, i.e. belief in miracles, I accept that person would be guilty as charged but you can only charge them once.

Classifying faith in any or all religions as irrational is nothing really new.

If there are miracles, how can we ever know the source of them?

The short answer would be to ask God in heaven, but that is really not a reasonable answer.

A miracle, not to put too fine a point on it, in one sense is about attribution. Of course, it could represent objective reality, but that determination is out of reach for us at the moment, and from a modern scientific point of view, there is no reason to expect an explanation will be found. If there seems to be no other explanation, then it is a miracle.

For example, certain cancers can disappear without treatment, there are peer-reviewed journals that document this. Then there is the Lazarus syndrome. Obviously, anyone who has been praying for healing or raising the dead will consider someone being 'healed' or rising from the dead as a miracle.

The stories of Jesus, even if one thinks of Him as a fictional character, contains accounts of miracles, and if one accepts these stories as being true, then there is no logical reason to pick and choose as to which miracles happened and which ones did not. If miracles are attributed to God, being all-powerful 'as the story goes, there is no reason to imagine to give a reason why it should not have happened at the beginning as well.

Kass' work is based on that of Leo Strauss. Unfortunately Strauss' commentary is hard to find.

If this stuff interests you another student of Strauss, Robert Sacks, wrote a commentary on Genesis:
https://interpretationjournal.com/shop/lion-ass-commentary-book-genesis-chapters-1-10-robert-sacks/
"The Lion and the Ass"

The essays are compiled here: https://www.greenlion.com/books/LionandAss.html

As for being irrational, what can I say? If a person believes irrationally that miracles happen, then they could believe that any number of miracles could have happened. The initial belief may be irrational, i.e. belief in miracles, I accept that person would be guilty as charged but you can only charge them once. — FreeEmotion

You can charge them again if they start presenting you with evidence as if they had a rational belief. An irrational belief doesn't require evidence. It's unnecessary and at worst distracting to the people looking for rational based understandings.

The entire question of evidence is central to this debate. I have already distanced myself from the practice of finding evidence to fit my interpretation of Genesis. In fact, Dr. William Lane Craig calls this a problem with hermeneutics. Presenting evidence that can later be dismissed is a bad idea, and these things have happened in the past with Ken Ham's enterprise.

I would appreciate it if you could give me examples of the 'evidence' the Creationists in question are presenting. Do you mean Ken Ham and Noah's Ark?

I would appreciate it if you could give me examples of the 'evidence' the Creationists in question are presenting. — FreeEmotion

I was thinking more just in principle; if a position is going to lean on an irrational belief then evidence supporting it doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to retract an acknowledgement of an irrational position. Off the top of my head; I think there have been people that try to add up consecutive lifetimes to arrive at a number. I think they have located the garden of Eden and the ark a few times. Flat earth seems to ride on an unspoken purpose of being evidence for creationist. Then, denial of fossils and other indicators as tests of faith. I believe a few irrational things, but I wouldn't consider trying to prove them or assert their implications.

The thing is Zeus might be God and the lesser gods could be each giving miracles to their favorite religions. There is no way to no. I've prayed much of my life but I realize now that I'm just talking to myself when I pray. I don't think God exists. Christians will blame the person who prays instead of the God who doesn't answer or exist and that is messed up. I don't mind Christians except when they say they can prove their faith is true. Many other religions make this claim too but I usually debate Christians because I've been Christian and am familiar with their theology

Anyone may think God does exist or does not exist but in any case, it may or may not correspond to reality. But that is not what I want to discuss.

I want to address your comment "When they say they can prove their faith is true" - this is one branch of something have encountered recently, under the God-Aweful name of 'Apologetics'.People are free to proclaim their faith, but when they try to make a case that a reasonable person has no choice but to believe in Christianity I ask - so what if someone is not reasonable? If a person is not 'reasonable' then trying to make a case will only put them off.

It is a very curious thing to me what evangelicals will make of Jesus's admonition to leave people alone if they will not believe.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Matthew 10:14, KJV

Also, one of the most important features of the ministry of Jesus and His disciples was that his teaching was accompanied by miracles, which caused many (but not all) to believe. This is very much absent from the current evangelistic program.

St Paul's instruction was to show 'gentleness and respect' when explaining one's reasons for faith to a non-believer, so you may have been the recipient of something less than gentleness and respect?

Evidence may be damaging to an irrational position, but may not persuade a person to give it up. There is evidence that will support the several sub-claims of a principal claim that is irrational or perhaps unsupported is a better word, and that evidence is valid, even though it is circumstantial. Of course, support for sub-claims does not prove the principle claim that is being made: for example, if is not possible to prove the existence of God, beyond all reasonable doubt, one could easily argue for a sub-claim convincingly: Taking God's existence as a given, then either God created the universe of the universe created God, it follows that the former inference is logical one.

I want to address your comment "When they say they can prove their faith is true" - this is one branch of something have encountered recently, under the God-Aweful name of 'Apologetics'. — FreeEmotion

Actually, that was Greg. I would have qualified it differently. My point was not to play both sides. If it's simply an irrational belief, then leave it there. Generally my position is that it's more important to be honest than convincing when it comes to religion.

or perhaps unsupported is a better word, and that evidence is valid, even though it is circumstantial. Of course, support for sub-claims does not prove the principle claim that is being made: for example, if is not possible to prove the existence of God, beyond all reasonable doubt, one could easily argue for a sub-claim convincingly: Taking God's existence as a given, then either God created the universe of the universe created God, it follows that the former inference is logical one. — FreeEmotion

Well, you are demonstrating my point to a degree. We start talking of evidence and it moves to an "unsupported claim". Taking the existence of unicorns for granted I can tell you that they eat twice a day. It doesn't really follow, but I think it's more important that people be ok with that; otherwise their beliefs hang on some tenuous evidence. I can't really prove that it matters that I do the right thing when no ones looking, but I believe it.

Although a literal interpretation of Genesis is very clearly in conflict with the current scientific understanding of origins, it is clear to me that any interpretation of Genesis is in conflict with the current scientific understanding of origins.

If you look at the theory of evolution, the theories of origin of life, and the theory of the origin of the universe, there is simply no room for God's action there, there are no gaps for God to act. Do you agree? In which case it is impossible to see how any 'harmonization' could be done rationally. It is not that God is unnecessary, it is necessary that there is no God.

If you look at the theory of evolution, the theories of origin of life, and the theory of the origin of the universe, there is simply no room for God's action there, there are no gaps for God to act. Do you agree? In which case it is impossible to see how any 'harmonization' could be done rationally. It is not that God is unnecessary, it is necessary that there is no God. — FreeEmotion

Rather, I can suppose there is a God of some type that prefers not to be identified with physical evidence. The trouble we have now with everyone who thinks they know what God wants is bad enough. Logically, if God wanted to tell you something then God could? So, if you don't have evidence it is because God hasn't seen the need to provide any.

it is necessary that there is no God — FreeEmotion

The 'God' of belief has been reduced to doing exactly what nature does.

'

Rather, I can suppose there is a God of some type that prefers not to be identified with physical evidence. — Cheshire

That view is on the face of it rather simplistic, but at a deeper level it is a sophisticated argument: God exists, but leaves no evidence, as in miracles, but on a more subtle level could be that God does not leave evidence that is detectable, for example, 'loading the dice' in the game of evolution, or arranging for some unlikely event such as the fine-tuning of the universe. One must be careful here, though, that lack improbability does not constitute proof.

I am curious though, as to what sort of evidence you think God has not seen the need to provide. Evidence of Creation, Guided Evolution or sometthing else.

I have not read the bible and I am not a Christian and so I have not given these matters much thought. But I take it that the basic problem here is that the bible says that the universe of our sensible awareness was created in 6 days some 6,000 years ago, whereas supposedly the scientific evidence is that it was created much, much more slowly.

However, I see no strict inconsistency. For as Bertrand Russell pointed out, it seems entirely possible that the whole world and everything in it popped into existence in its entirety last Thursday. If that was in fact the case - that is, if the world and every thing in it popped into existence last Thursday - that would not be inconsistent with any scientific data, but with certain additional assumptions that scientists have mistakenly made (such that the processes that have been going on since last Thursday have been going on for much longer and are responsible for much more). And it is not as if we'd stop using scientific methods to find out about the world.

What goes for the last Thursday thesis surely also goes for the biblical account of creation. That is, it is not inconsistent with any scientific data, but rather is inconsistent with certain additional assumptions that scientists typically make, such as that the processes that turned B into C, also turned A into B. That may be an entirely reasonable assumption if other things are equal, but surely any rationally capable Christian would argue that other things are far from equal.

Another confusion, it seems to me, is between time and events. Time is not made of events. But events are taken to be the guide to how much time has passed. And again, that's quite reasonable other things being equal. But there is no inconsistency in granting that all the events the scientific evidence says have occurred, have indeed occurred just at a much faster rate in the initial stages (a 'two hour' film can be watched in about 10 minutes if one speeds it up - same events occur, just faster). There is, then, really no upper limit on how many events can occur in a day. And thus the six day thesis (and the 6,000 years ago thesis) is consistent with the occurrence all of the events the scientific evidence implies have occurred.

Obviously one would need good independent reason to think the world was created in 6 days etc, but the point is that there seems no strict inconsistency with scientific data.

As for apparent internal inconsistencies within the bible - saying one thing here and another there - these do not conflict with scientific evidence, but rather with the law of non-contradiction. And that isn't really a problem given that God can do anything, including violate the law of non-contradiction. So bearing that in mind, I think there is no problem being a literalist about the bible.