The US clearly has a strategic interest in Ukraine. It clearly has an anti-Russia agenda. — Isaac

This story is as old as the hills it seems. American forces fought in the Russian Revolution. Maybe they lost.

https://www.rferl.org/a/when-american-soldiers-fought-a-war-in-russia/30410353.html

Ukraine needs to get some things right, putting the minority Russian speaking populace in a corner is not really a good thing. One example is the restriction on Russian books, while the Ukranian President appeals to Russians by speaking Russian in his speech.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On December 30, 2016, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine signed into law a decree that restricts import of books into Ukraine from Russia.

According to the law, a person can bring at most 10 Russian books without a permit. Unauthorized distribution of books from Russia is under a penalty — Wikipedia

Of course it is. The only difference is that the West is run by lawyers, political scientists, and economists, who are better at using diplomatic language to conceal their true intentions than people like Putin or Xi. — Apollodorus

All very unfortunate. He who dies with the most toys wins? Is that it?

Well then you can count me out of that, it's not in the spirit of 'one family' that world religions or humanists for that matter talk about.

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world

But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out — The Beatles

I don't know about Russia, but China sure is watching and learning a few lessons to put into practice when the time is right .... — Apollodorus

Yes yes but what for? What is the end game here? What are the goals of the great nations of the world right now, isn't it more power and domination over the others, in some sort of an international squid game? Is that what the human race was meant for?

What happened to peace and the common good?

Barack Obama calls for 'world without nuclear weapons' during historic visit to Hiroshima

He called for the world to embrace the notion of a "single human family" to move beyond conflict — The Independent

Well, America did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it did it no harm. So, judging from history, that shouldn't be a big deterrent. — Apollodorus

Great point, but we understand that that attack was carried out during a world war, in which all countries were involved and were attacked and occupied by Japanese forces. Come to think of it, conventional warheads would have the same effect, or even cruise missiles. Many of us were on the winning side, we were fighting the war.

In this case one country, is being attacked while the rest of the world is at peace, relatively, and the United States has publicly stated it will not get into direct conflict with Russian forces.

The consensus, I think, among the nations of the world is that the only justification for a nuclear attack is a first strike against that country, and this is not the case here.

Survival? By taking Ukraine? In what way is that survival? Please explain what the actual threat is? All those nations, including Ukraine, want is to be their own nation. Putin and Russia is huge, no one has any interest in obliterating Russia, even many Russians themselves don't want any of this. So if it's not survival, what is it then? I really want some strong argument for the survival angle, like, actual threats to Russia's existence. And how they cannot exist in the normal nuclear superpower as it is right now. — Christoffer

What would you do if you were put in (pun intended) as President of Russia? Would you be any different? Since the rise of Nazi Germany's illegal arms build up to the point where they had military superiority the name of the game is to prevent your adversary from gaining a military advantage even before any war starts. That's deterrent. Military inequality is the goal.

The constant rhetoric from the United States in particularly is aimed at diminishing Russia. Lets see a search for Russia on CNN, for example. Russia is still the enemy. Those nuclear missiles are not aimed at sunny Spain, for example.

CNN —. Now that Russian President Vladimir Putin has embarked on his crusade to eradicate a neighboring democracy and subdue its proud and fearless people, the goal of the rest of the democratic ...

No one wins if Russia's economy falls apart.
Its trading partners -- countries and businesses -- are watching with concern as Russia scrambles to tackle a deepening economic crisis, sparked by plunging oil prices and punishing international sanctions.

The ruble has been in free fall and is already hurting earnings at global companies with operations in Russia.

CNN -2014 — CNN

But to see that international finance has more power than a country with a huge nuclear arsenal, does raise some interesting questions ... — Apollodorus

Financial measures work for sure, and are relatively benign and reversible, unlike a nuclear option.

For those like myself who want to respect all nations and all leaders of those nations, including Vladimir Putin, any such regard will crumble to nothing if a nuclear first strike is launched. We all know what Putin's enemies think, but for those who broadly support Russia, China know that it will be impossible to have any connections - trade, tourism, and so on - for me at least - with peoples of a country that launched a nuclear first strike. This is why China has a no first strike policy. I think people underestimate the moral revulsion among friends and enemies alike if such a thing happens. We all know what happened with Covid 19.

Putin can always call it off, after weighing the concessions he can gain versus the cost of continuing.
What troubles me is that is simply not between two nations, there are substantial undercurrents it seems that upset the ability of Russia and Ukraine to come to terms with each other: you don't negotiate with a 'toy' but with its owner, an exaggeration to be sure, but there it is.

The Ukraine could have a nice life as a neutral state and enjoy the benefits from being on good terms with both sides. Like Switzerland. But no. They don't want to profit from their strategic geopolitical position. They don't want to care who one of their neighbors is. They want to do their own thing. They want to be free to threaten their neighbor.
And the Americans don't want to pass up this opportunity either.
And after two years of covid, people are stressed out and need to relieve themselves somehow.

So it's not clear how realistic it is to even consider that the situation could be deescalated. — baker

I agree. Ukraine could have had it all, but they have been open to overt and covert foreign interference, which has upset the internal balance. I am not also sure about the Ukranian government, both Russian and the NATO powers claim that there is widespread corruption, maybe the one thing they agree on.

Russia is going to come out of this worse for wear, Ukraine has a window of opportunity as a neutral state, but it needs the correct leadership, not sure their young president Zelensky can handle it. He was naive enough to expect NATO to help prevent the invasion.

Is Ukraine being 'used'? Anyone can say anything, but I personally feel the statement by Medvedev his highly plausible.

Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman, Dmitry Medvedev claimed that Ukraine is being used as a "geopolitical pressure tool" against Russia and China as it has turned into a "toy" in the hands of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Medvedev also anticipated that Volodymyr Zelensky's acts as President of Ukraine would most likely result in the country's destruction. "I am not disappointed by Zelensky in any way. I believe he is doing exactly what a person with his level of training and professional qualification for the position of President of Ukraine should be doing. And, sadly for him, this will almost certainly lead to Ukraine's destruction," Medvedev remarked, as per Sputnik. — Sputnik - Jan 22, 2022

He really has been though. Russia had to reinvent itself in the 1990s. There was no recipe for how to do it. Putin did a great job. — frank

The question is, though, is he popular (approval rating) and has he broken any laws internationally?

But since we are on a philosophy forum, we can try practical philosophy. What could we do? Seriously, what could we do in the situation the world is in with Ukraine and Russia? — Christoffer

Cristoffer, we all understand your concerns. No-one wants people to get killed. In our school textbooks we are taught about war, it is glorified, not condemned, and until people come around to think war is an unacceptable option, criminal even, things will not change too much. Maybe if children are taught about Alexander the Killer of Men rather than Alexander the Great, when they become adults they may have a more circumspect view of war.

What if nations resorted to other means other than lethal force? Cyber attacks, media manipulation, paying off politicians, blackmail, threats, secret deals, guarantees of immunity, and covert operations. Would that be any more morally acceptable? Surprisingly, NATO has the right approach:

Article 1 of the treaty states that member parties "settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." — WIkipedia - North Atlantic Treaty

Very noble.

Solutions? What about a ceasefire and UN Peacekeepers? It has been proposed before:

In September 2017, talk of a settlement picked up after Russia circulated a draft UN Security Council resolution proposing the deployment of UN forces along the front line separating Kyiv’s forces, on one side, from Kremlin-backed separatists, on the other.

Moscow had ignored Kyiv’s calls for peacekeepers since early 2015, so its proposal was regarded with suspicion by Ukraine and its Western allies. Most saw the small force envisaged along the front as a non-starter, more likely to freeze the conflict than end it. Nonetheless, the proposal spurred fresh thinking about ways out of the stalemate. — Crisisgroup

If Ukraine survives this attack as an independent state, next thing it does will be to join NATO. Russia will then come in direct geographic proximity with NATO, and it will be all thanks to Putin.

If Ukraine does not survive as an independent state and is absorbed (formally or not) into Russia, then Russia will de facto come into geographic contact with NATO (since Poland, Ukraine's western neighbour, is part of NATO). And it will be all thanks to Putin. — Olivier5

For some reason NATO is unwilling to admit Ukraine into NATO. The final agreement may include this condition. Ukraine is a large, resource - filled country of 40 million - look at the map. It will not be neutral.

If Ukraine does not survive as an independent state, well then Russia will get what it wants - a large buffer state between itself and NATO, and in any case is bordering one NATO country. Given the demographics this will be a very tough situation to manage and Putin knows this. Maybe he is desperate.

The move from 12 NATO members to 30 NATO members leaves me a little confused: the all expected to be attacked by Russia - wouldn't this make attack more likely?

My understanding of President Putin is that although he may make a foolish decision, he is not stupid. As you know, any attack on a NATO member - let me quote:

The treaty was created with an armed attack by the Soviet Union against Western Europe in mind, but the mutual self-defense clause was never invoked during the Cold War. — Wikipedia

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

The entire article is worth reading, as well as the map showing the virtual encirclement of Russia on the western front by NATO countries, the number growing from 12 to 30 countries.

Anyone knows that NATO will have to respond militarily, even a token gesture otherwise NATO's credibility, the entire NATO concept would lose its credibility. Some things are more or less mechanical given the environment : for example you try to grab the weapon of an armed soldier and there is a guaranteed response.

Anyway that is what I think.

Exactly. That is the essence of NATO's deterrent. Don't tell me it does not work because NATO would have been then a total waste of time.

If Ukraine surrenders, surely less people will be killed, if stopping the killing is what you want.
You cannot at once assign Putin responsibility for starting the war and also being prevented from starting it. Stopping him has to be done by someone else.

How does that refusal to let Ukraine join NATO just so as not to 'upset Putin' now feel? You surely cannot place the responsibility on Putin for that.

Wars will be less frequent when citizens demand that nations conduct themselves in a manner that seeks peace. I am not sure if citizens are powerful enough right now, anywhere.

One last wish that Russia decline, apparently the West is fixated on this goal.

In recent years, the more dire prophesies of Russian collapse that circulated in the 1990s having gone unfulfilled, such characterizations have given way to a recognition that Russia is in fact a "persistent power." Fundamentally, though, nothing has changed. Whether rebranded as a mere "nuisance power" or as a perpetually "disruptive" power, Russia is viewed now as it has been since it emerged out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union in December 1991 - as a broken, if sometimes petulant, vestige of a once-mighty superpower.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/reports-of-russias-decline-are-greatly-exaggerated/ar-AAS9uCn?pfr=1

You still don't know what is going on right now. What's the economic gain for Russia by invading Ukraine? Explain please — Christoffer

Survival? I mean everyone here seems to want a weak, diminished Russia without any say on the worldwide stage, maybe like Great Britain after it lost its colonies. Well at least it did not try to take them back. I am for the status quo (pre -2014) but no-one likes that.

No leader, regardless of how evil, purposely destroyed his own country. It follows then, there there must be something that president Putin thinks he can achieve for Russia. Maybe it is survival.

Look at history: it was a cold 'war': The U.S. in direct conflict with Russian made equipment and maybe personnel in the Korean war and the Vietnam War, against 'communist ideology'. The cold war was won and lost, which implies hostile action, no matter how peaceful, which resulted in the break up of the Soviet Union and incidentally sending North Korea into a spiral. Why celebrate victory in a cold war if you had nothing to do with the result? NATO expanding eastward (why?) making sure they have an unbelievable strategic advantage of making Russia's armed forces straitjacketed when it comes to any military actions, Russia can attack very few nations now.

Syria - Russia's only naval base in that region, perhaps the world, under threat. They almost lost it - and you can see why they are opposing NATO forces in Syria, which has foreign funded rebels just like the Ukraine.

What would you do if your country was broken into pieces and those pieces become allied with the enemy one by one, and with continued provocation, and demonization in the media ?

Russia has been attacked, coldly, calculatingly, and the best we can hope for is a Gandhi -style non - violent resistance from President Putin, though this does stagger the imagination.

I do not think Putin is stupid enough to start a nuclear war, however making threats is the rational thing to do. After all, the United States has publicly stated it will not get involved, and Western threats are exclusively economic.

What's going on here? Why wasn't this prevented by admitting Ukraine into NATO? Could it have been worse than this? Are we witnessing a game of political football with Ukraine as the football? My biggest fear is that this is not the last time.

War is a result of the failure of nations to settle disputes amicably.

The United States will not put US pilots in the air to create a no-fly zone in Ukraine, Thomas-Greenfield said Sunday.

The Biden administration's posture of keeping US forces out of Ukraine means "we're not going to put American troops in the air as well, but we will work with the Ukrainians to give them the ability to defend themselves," she said. — CNN

Here we go again.

"We're probably privvy to about 2% of the truth of what is actually happening and the reasons behind it"



“Truth never damages a cause that is just.”

― Mahatma Gandhi

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11414-truth-never-damages-a-cause-that-is-just

So what is the 2% truth we know and is it a moot point to discuss this with in 98% darkness?

Lets see what we know: (CNN)

Zelensky agrees to talks Monday as Putin raises nuclear alert and West adds sanctions — CNN

Again, CNN: (Fareed Zakaria )

In the case of Ukraine, the battle lines are already drawn: The opposition of the bulk of the population to any Russian puppet regime could not be clearer. Nearly 80% of the population identifies as Ukrainian and a similar proportion continues to support Ukrainian independence. Solid majorities favor joining both the EU and NATO and also have a low opinion of Russia; hardly a surprise given Russia's annexation of Crimea and sponsorship of violent separatists in the Donbas region.
Moreover, Ukrainians overthrew previous pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 in large part because he intended to steer Ukraine into Russia's orbit and away from the European Union. — Fareed Zakaria

Truth?

It is interesting to consider the number of lives lost through war.

WW1 : 37,569,768

https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/politics/casualties-world-war-i-country-politics-world-war-i

WW2: 75,000,000

Some 75 million people died in World War II, including about 20 million military personnel and 40 million civilians, many of whom died because of deliberate genocide, massacres, mass-bombings, disease, and starvation.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/


The population of the earth in 2000 BC is estimated between 27 and 72 million.

It is a good thing there are more people around now.

I guess we are all Stayin Alive though cities were breaking and everybody was shaken. Is this a shaking up process for the collective psyche of humanity?

The Bee Gees said it well:

"Feel the city breakin'
And everybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive."

Maybe something is going down?

"Listen to the ground:
There is movement all around.
There is something goin' down
And I can feel it."

(The Bee Gees, "Stayin Alive" and "Night Fever")

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beegees/

I am not sure that the hesitancy to help Afghans is based on anything resembling carefully reasoned arguments regarding morality. That's the rub. It might be a result of either fear, lack of knowledge or political affiliation (for example some channels describe aid as 'helping terrorists'.) There has been much progress this far, and it looks like the request for aid will be met, thanks largely to the US and EU. It remains to be seen, however if a humanitarian catastrophe can be avoided altogether.

How does one ensure that a country produces a good government to rule itself? Many say Democracy is the answer: but is it? Is it simply following the UN Charter: that is, all countries follow the UN Charter in dealing with each other and with their people?

Being able to have government leaders that represent the people and having means of being economically reasonable is a facet of any thriving country. — Josh Alfred

Yes, but how?

I see no real 'dilemma'. Many wrong doings have happened and will continue to happen even with so-called 'moral arguments' behind them.

Practical action is needed rather than philosophical ponderings. I'm not inclined to risk my life to try to 'help' though if I'm brutally honest. A monetary donation to aid organisations? If you think it will help someone somewhere a little go ahead and donate. — I like sushi

Donations will help, especially if the organization is monitored by the donors . Yes many wrongs will continue to happen. However, 2000 years since Plato and Aristotle, civilization seems not to have progressed away from war: be it Afghanistan, Libya, or anywhere else. The great religious leaders have all come : there are fewer wars going on, but there are wars nevertheless. Is this some sort of a worldwide rite of passage for the human race? Initiations can be quite brutal. Are we being initiated into some larger cosmic awakening through death and war?

This is one view, not necessarily one I subscribe to.

Medical technology is failing and the medical care that we are receiving is often not healing us, but making us sicker. Many people are seeking alternative therapies such as seeing chiropractors, massage therapists, acupuncture specialists, energy healers, and new age practitioners to treat their health conditions.

This is a time of questioning, exploring knowledge, increasing our spiritual awareness and focusing on technological advances to help humanity survive in these trying times. Some believe that we are in the “Age of Aquarius” and there are many different opinions as to when this age actually starts.

It is evident that we are in an intense energetic time and we are all feeling it, but what is it that we are feeling? — Liveabout

Yes I have heard of this incident. Underlying all this is the thought of men, and the thoughts of men are ruled by their philosophy. The failure of philosophy is to blame?

I suggest that we have to stop saying "Alexander the Great" and instead call him "Alexander the Killer of Men". That is the mindset change that is needed?

Since my first post there have been many millions pledged to help the people of Afghanistan.

The world must either prepare to feed many more famine stricken people, or decide to write off millions of people as beyond help. Feeding won't bring about quality government or honest politicians, or rid a nation of greedy parasites. It may not help people living in a failed state in the long run, unless we keep feeding them in the long run. — Bitter Crank

The world cannot agree on anything, which is a good thing, since some aid will always trickle through.

I wonder if the deeper question is the lack of moral education, or for that matter, the depth of philosophical sophistication among politicians. Can the case be made for educating voters to choose educated leaders or more subtly, to insist that the leaders they choose are capable of reasoning correctly? To put it crudely, is it better to be ruled by Genghis Khan or Emperor Nero than an Aristotelian ideal? How do countries make sure this happens?

Thousands of years of civilization has not really civilized people?

4. You end up helping Islamic extremists or millions of Afghans will die a slow, painful death (dilemma) — TheMadFool

Definition of dilemma
1a: a usually undesirable or unpleasant choice
faces this dilemma: raise interest rates and slow the economy or lower them and risk serious inflation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dilemma

This goes to the heart of the matter. Why is this an unpleasant choice? Helping any government, even the government that authorized the carnage in Afghanistan is a moral dilemma? What about helping Saudi Arabia by selling them weapons?

I don't think God has dilemmas:

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor i and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Matthew 5:43-45.

Is the practice that Jesus commended the best? Buddhism also promotes a similar view, I am not sure of the other religions.

In practical terms, making the Taliban aid dependent is a way of getting a hold of them?

Afghanistan's success depends on the level of conflict within its borders as much as on the Taliban's government methods. Development and conflict do not mix, and if we have a level of violence that preceded the withdrawal, there is no way of saying where it will go. If the humanitarian crisis is not alleviated, it could cause problems for the Taliban.

Apart from unrest, much depends on external factors: Afghan Central bank assets, humanitarian aid, infrastructure development not to mention agriculture.

None of these is uniquely Muslim. As has been pointed out there are several 'more developed' Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia and Malaysia.

If it was simply a case of Afghanistan and Islam things would be much simpler.

What seems to be an excellent summary on interpretation options for Genesis is here:

https://biologos.org/articles/comparing-interpretations-of-genesis-1/

I would lean towards the concordist interpretations, out of which the "Gap" theory I would rule out, in agreement with the authors.

"The Gap and Day-Age concordist views would have baffled the original audience, since these ancients would have had no concept of geological ages; if they could not fathom time periods of millions or billions of years, the text must have meant something different to them. "

Assuming this is true, and that the gap theory extends the meaning of the text to unimaginable proportions, and that the day-age theory is untenable because any of the ages cannot correspond to any geological spans of time unless those specifically chosen to match the geological record in which case there is no difference between the geological day age and the Biblical one. I assume the original text did not anticipate this.

So I am left with the 'six day' creation and the 'creation poem' interpretation. Both of these are compatible with the Christian faith and are self-consistent.

"Moreover, concordists can be forced to regularly change and update their interpretations as modern scientific knowledge grows and changes. For instance, the Gap Interpretation twisted the meaning of Genesis 1:2 outside its original intent; later it failed to match new scientific evidence."

I would agree with the above.

It is worth pointing out that the statement that 'a scientific study' will confirm the six day creation account is really missing the point. Science will never confirm a six day creation account, or more to the point a Divine creation, the scientific enterprise is simply not moving in this direction and never will.

All history is written on aged paper. Is the United States Constitution inerrant and infallible? How do we know that it is what the Authors intended, whether it was written by men, and if it contains contradictions?

Modern theological brains are what are certifying that the Bible is trustworthy. Are you saying the human race did not evolve right? Maybe only evangelicals will be fit to survive.

If the Biblical account of creation is self-consistent, then the next question, which might be raised in another discussion, is; "Is belief in a God consistent with the belief in a Creator-God"? I think it is not only consistent but necessary.

The next question is then how did God create the universe? Any answer to this question has to be consistent with the Biblical account of creation, the Biblical account as myth (which reflects on the truthfulness of the Bible and God's character. We speak of 'apparent age' what about 'apparent truth' and 'apparent revelation'?

The answer to the question of how God created cannot be answered by the scientific enterprise as these are ever - changing theories, none of which claim to be final, except in their intention, which is to exclude forever supernatural causes and interpretations.

There are various approaches to interpreting the Bible, so I do no think I can agree with all of them. Instead of avoiding objectivity completely, lets avoid subjectivity competently. Let me make it clear what the subject is here: the text of the Bible, and specifically of the creation account in Genesis 1.

One approach to inconsistencies is to choose between them, the other is to seek to harmonize them. For the sake of argument, let us remove the self-inconsistencies in Genesis 1. That is, conflicting accounts within the text of an event, but taken in their natural sense. For example if God created the 'heavens and the earth' first, then the sun and the moon, the creation of the heavens did not include the sun and moon. I am not talking of Genesis 2, but if one chooses Genesis 1 over Genesis 2, this does not make Genesis 1 untrue. Of course one can claim unreliably of the Bible, but that is a separate matter.

I have read once again the first chapter of Genesis, and, although it has several things that I do not understand, like the 'vault', the statements are clear: the text says that God created the everything in the 'heavens' night sky - stars etc and the earth, all living plants, animals and human beings. The co-author of the text for which we believe God was the co-author (or maybe editor) has made sensibly made no specific claims of creation, and has produced an account that is self-consistent, in my opinion.

I am not sure I follow you at all. The sin of piety?

I think we are discussing the subset of views where God can do anything but does not break the laws of self - contradiction, we can do that.

One man's patterns are another persons nonsense. Why can't Christians just discuss this stuff with themselves? Why do they try to sell it to other people? If you want to evangelize why not talk only about your relationship with Jesus? You're going down the apologetic path yourself. — Gregory

There are many reasons Christians do not just discuss among themselves, although they argue among themselves as well. Some Christians believe that all believers, not just preachers and evangelists have a duty to try to convert other people at every opportunity. That is not what my purpose is here. My purpose is to get some views on the rationality of the Biblical story.

What would really upset theologians is being told they are irrational. They are theologians after all. I think Christians also would not like being called stupid or irrational. So there are two choices, either admit that Christianity is "foolishness to the Greeks" and move on to something else, or try to make some rational statements about all of it that people of all faiths can accept and respect. Is this possible, and in what areas?

The entire problem is that the current aim of scientific enterprise is to seek to remove God from all causes and this is a stand a Christian cannot take. I think from the Christian point of view, the Christian tells people how to go to heaven and the scientist tells people not how the heavens go, but how to go to hell by denying the existence of God.

“How to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.”
Posted on August 10, 2009 by thegodguy
The above quote was made by a Catholic Cardinal to soften the blow of new scientific evidence about the cosmos coming from observations being made with the telescope (Copernican theory). Science did one thing. Religion did another. So there was no conflict.

I think time travel is possible, the past will include the time travel event as part of history. For example, you travel back to 1870, wait for a few minutes and then come back. People will see you appear for a few minutes and disappear.

All causal events stemming from the time travel will be recorded as having an unexplained cause.

I have read some stories of alleged time travel, and it seems to be possible to fit them into a consistent picture of the universe and reality.

https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/7-real-accounts-of-time-travel-that-ll-leave-you-questioning-everything-258251.html

Take the Babylonian creation story for example:

https://www.creationmyths.org/enumaelish-babylonian-creation/enumaelish-babylonian-creation-2.htm

Is it self-consistent? Well, as far as there are no contradictory statements within the text, and the original story tellers would have known this, it is self- consistent. My position is somewhat like a person who believes in the Babylonian myth today. A Babylonian Creationist!

So what would I say to this Babylonian Creationist? Your story is self-consistent. You believe in it. Are there any claims of the personalities acting throughout history? Are there any further revelations? And if so, will dismissing the Creation story as merely a story affect your faith? These are the questions to answer. The Babylonian myth will conflict with science, but there will be those who try to harmonize it, which is not necessary.

There are degrees of irrationality when it comes to faith and the Bible. Most theologians would make the claim that there is a certain method to it, the Bible stories are not jumbled mess that a mad person would write, there are some very cogent, intelligent passages, there is poetry, there is history, and there is prophecy. So there are parts where God did not do anything - in the Bible story, for example, in the book of Esther the word 'God' does not appear.

The problem occurs with the 'miraculous' or 'supernatural' parts of the Bible. How do we approach this? I would say the Creation story is broadly self consistent, except for some parts, such as the creation of the sun after the creation of light.

Is it possible to create the sun before the creation of light? Then the sun would be light-less. As I thought about this, is there a situation where light exists without the sun? Then evening came, and as the sun went down, there was still light, but no sun visible. Diffuse light, and not from the sun, but from the sun 8 minutes ago, existing independently in the atmosphere through diffusion.

There is a difference between a conflict between the Biblical account and scientific theory and between the Biblical story and rationality. This is exactly what I am trying to draw out. I feel that there is a large audience that will accept this, it being a numbers game after all, in a sort of truth by vote world.

Arguments for omnipotence can get ridiculous. The question 'can God destroy Himself' was to me unanswerable until I realized that if God destroys Himself he would not be God, since God is eternal.

Of course there is a sort of reductionist argument that answers the omnipotence problem:

Simply put it means saying yes to every question about God.
Can God destroy Himself Yes
Can God destroy Himself and still exist? Yes
Can God destroy Himself and still exist but not exist? Yes
Can God exist and not exist? Yes.
Can God be eternal and die? Yes

Take your pick. In any case I am discussing a set of writings fixed in time and space, about which a limited number of rational statements are possible.

But it seems to me that once one grants that the bible is the word of God, there is no possibility of the bible being self-inconsistent. — Bartricks

The entire Bible is not self-inconsistent, there are entire passages that are self-consistent, they may be taken to be fiction, however.

There are some statements that seem to be self-inconsistent in the Genesis account, and these are: the creation of light before the Sun and moon, and the two differring accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Any civilization having a written language and even rudimentary technology such as used in farming, and a working knowledge of nature would be doubtless aware of the concept of cause and effect. More to the point, in daily lives the appearance of light is never something that happens on its own - there is a source for light, even the people of ancient Biblical times knew this. The appearance of light therefore meant to signify something.

I would suggest that the concept of a God who does not do anything is self-inconsistent, and the text must reflect this.

Faith does not have to be faith in God.

Could you prove that it was wishful thinking?

That's one way to prove it. In any case the entire concept seems to be in difficulty.