With all due respect you're chopping verses out of context between chapters 1 and 2.

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:15, ESV, https://ref.ly/Ge1.1-5;esv)

A few things of note. First. Light is called day. Darkness night. He doesn't call the time in which part of the earth is in either light or darkness day or night. So we can conclude that light and day and dark and night are more conceptually based than just the earths full rotation. So to narrow this time period specifically to a modern day elapse of earths rotation is far too simplistic of a take.

Furthermore this is taken form Gods perspective not earth's. We see a shift to an earthly perceptive later. And time is RELATIVE. So whose day is it? Is it an earth day? Or a cosmic day? Which the time impact difference on planet earth would again be significantly different based on whose perspective of day it is.

But wait there's more. The sun isn't even created yet. So what is the earth spinning around? Is it even spinning? If there's no sun the spin of the earth isn't creating light on one side and darkness on the other. So by the fact the sun isn't even created yet you fundamentally CANNOT conclude the first day is 24 hours. And if there's first day is certainly not 24 hours why would you inherently conclude any other day is?

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Why has God deceptively made a mature earth that seems to contradict his word?

---

To make it a matter of faith. Heb. 11:3

There are a lot of ridiculous, "deceptive" things in the Bible that we simply believe. The sun stopping mid-course, a donkey talking, water into wine, and people rising from the dead. All against every natural principle we have. We know what is "natural" in order to identify what is "supernatural."

I think that'a a very good point in general but doesn't apply to the topic at hand. The Bible doesn't state the weth was created old. That is a modern idea based on the take of a 7 literal day. Contrasted to the scriptures very clearly stated Jesus turned water into wine as an undisputed miracle of Jesus.

I'm not sure what a "young" earth would even look like. Do you? Adam was created a man, not a zygote.

I don't believe in young earth. It's nonsense. But scripturally we see the earth was without form. So there's at least described some process. As for Adam it's likely he was created to some level of maturity but that doesn't mean the rest of creation was. Adam is unique in his creation specifically because God breathes the breath of life into him. So personally I wouldn't be comfortable extrapolating Adam's creation to the rest of creation as a proof of a created old earth. If that makes sense haha

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'm not sure what a "young" earth would even look like. Do you? Adam was created a man, not a zygote.

---

Some would say that when God formed man from dust and blew life in him- that "dust" made a phenomenological leap in its natural development.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Why has God deceptively made a mature earth that seems to contradict his word?

---

To make it a matter of faith. Heb. 11:3

There are a lot of ridiculous, "deceptive" things in the Bible that we simply believe. The sun stopping mid-course, a donkey talking, water into wine, and people rising from the dead. All against every natural principle we have. We know what is "natural" in order to identify what is "supernatural."

---

I wouldn't care much about a god who plays games to screw with the minds of mortals as a matter of testing their faith. Sounds like a psychopath.

Who doesn't make something and then test it to ensure it's ready for use it was designed for?

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Who doesn't make something and then test it to ensure it's ready for use it was designed for?

---

Your metaphor holds up so long "it" is a non-sensient entity. Otherwise you're bordering on sadism.

Why? Who are you to determine that distinction?

For those who are believers in the God of All creation, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the maker of all things visible, and invisible, one God in three persons, I have a question:

What is the motivation to disbelieve what the scriptures say? In other words, why not just take it for what it says?

Is it that you struggle with reconciling it to what science teaches?

Is it that you just cannot wrap your head around everything we know being created in 6 days?

What is it? I'm genuinely curious.

I appreciate your answer and yes I had read through your previous post.
So, the scriptures teach that God created the heavens and the Earth and light. He called the light day and the darkness night. So, to your point, regardless of time we have the Day and night from the beginning.

Next He creates the Sky. Then He gathers the waters beneath the sky into 'Seas' and exposes the dry ground 'Land'. As well as creates all the vegetation.

Then He creates the two lights in the sky (Sun and Moon presumably) and the stars for the purpose of governing over the day (Sun) and night (Moon) and to mark sacred times, and days and years.

If we look at this, we can say that God had already established day and night from the very first of creation. So far, we are talking light and dark to your point and time is not clear. But then the scripture teaches on day 4 that the Sun and Moon were created for the purpose of governing day and night (something already existing), and to mark sacred times days and years, the introduction of time I think. Did the 24 day/night period start here, or was it the same before, or has it since changed to 24hrs?

So, we know scriptures teaches in the beginning of the next chapter that God finished his creation "By the seventh day, so on the seventh day He rested from all His work".
We also know that scripture teaches the sabbath is sacred and it aligns with the days as we know them today including the Sun moon etc.

So, my real question is this: it seems given what we know about the days and years and the teachings of the Sabbath, that for one who is a believer, there must be some reason driving him to look at the first chapter of Genesis and suddenly think that these 6 days (or maybe even just the first 3) were different.
It seems to me the believer would just assume they are the same as we know them today.
But somehow, this is a point of debate among believers.

For you, is it really just the technicality of whether time is the teaching versus simply light and dark? Is it easier for you to believe that all this was created in 6 days based on a time from God's perspective that could be millions of years in time as we know it? And, if so, what makes that easier for you? Does the secular world view of earth and time affect this for you?

Also, why is it your view that the burden of proof is on those who apply the same 24 hr day that the world has known and experienced since the beginning of man to the scriptures in the first chapter of Genesis, rather than on those who want to make it something different?
I don't think we could prove it either way. While I see where disbelievers would choose this, I struggle with how believers get here.

To me it's a little comical that people (not you specifically) claim they believe in God and all His creation, but want to limit His ability to create it in the time the scriptures we have say He created it!

I'll respond later. I want to give it the time it deserves. Good response by you and I want to give your response the proper respect it deserves and not just fire off the proverbial hip.

Catag94 said:

---

I appreciate your answer and yes I had read through your previous post.
So, the scriptures teach that God created the heavens and the Earth and light. He called the light day and the darkness night. So, to your point, regardless of time we have the Day and night from the beginning.

Next He creates the Sky. Then He gathers the waters beneath the sky into 'Seas' and exposes the dry ground 'Land'. As well as creates all the vegetation.

Then He creates the two lights in the sky (Sun and Moon presumably) and the stars for the purpose of governing over the day (Sun) and night (Moon) and to mark sacred times, and days and years.

If we look at this, we can say that God had already established day and night from the very first of creation. So far, we are talking light and dark to your point and time is not clear. But then the scripture teaches on day 4 that the Sun and Moon were created for the purpose of governing day and night (something already existing), and to mark sacred times days and years, the introduction of time I think. Did the 24 day/night period start here, or was it the same before, or has it since changed to 24hrs?

We ultimately do not know the answer. And thus to me the burden of proof is on those claiming it was a very specific way. A few thoughts: In regards to time, it seems to be what messes everyone up. Either the atheist are trying to always add more time. Time really for the atheist has become their God. To the point now they advocate for a multiverse theory despite zero evidence. They do this because within it there is an infinite amount of time. Contrasted to some Christians who wish to squeeze everything down into 6 thousand years or so and 6 literal days of creation.

I think the correct approach is not to time/date things but to chronologically order them. "In the beginning" inst a reference to time but to order. The days likewise. They arent communicating time but the order of events. How do we know? Because time is relative. We are not told from who's perspective the day is being measured. Therefor we cannot conclude any specific elapse of time from anyone's point of view. Also the sun was created for the first few days. So theres no time piece. What is created is the darkness and light. Day and night. Which again are orders, procedures, rules, etc. Not specific time measurements during creation.

We also see light and darkness are created before the moon and sun. In Revelation we see that those bodies are no longer needed for light in God's Holy city. And there is only light. So to me its communicating eternity. Not eternity in the sense of again time measurement but eternity in the sense that the chronology of events have concluded.

It seems to me the importance of whats being communicated is specific events occurring in specific blocks of time separate from each other in a specific order. Trying to nail down the elapse of time is a bit of a red herring to me.

Furthermore, lets assume the point of view is on earth. We do not know the rate of rotation of the earth at this period. It could be spinning faster or slower. We just do not know.

So, we know scriptures teaches in the beginning of the next chapter that God finished his creation "By the seventh day, so on the seventh day He rested from all His work".
We also know that scripture teaches the sabbath is sacred and it aligns with the days as we know them today including the Sun moon etc.

I think its also important to note that the Sabbath is not purely a 24 hour time period. There's sabbath years and weeks. In Hebrews 4 the comparison to Gods eternal rest and the 7th day of creation is made. We do not think Gods rest is a single day. Nor do we think the "Day of Salvation" is a single day. There is no theological imperative relating the 7th day of creation to God's eternal rest requiring the 7th day of creation to be 24 hours.

So, my real question is this: it seems given what we know about the days and years and the teachings of the Sabbath, that for one who is a believer, there must be some reason driving him to look at the first chapter of Genesis and suddenly think that these 6 days (or maybe even just the first 3) were different.
It seems to me the believer would just assume they are the same as we know them today.
But somehow, this is a point of debate among believers.

Likely there is some typology going on. 3 days without the sun. Three days without the Son(in the earth). Or three time periods prior to Christ, the fourth with His advent, three periods of time after, culminating in the end of work/salvation entering into God's rest. But again this is likely all about ordering the events into specific time periods (days) and not communicating specific elapses of time.

For you, is it really just the technicality of whether time is the teaching versus simply light and dark? Is it easier for you to believe that all this was created in 6 days based on a time from God's perspective that could be millions of years in time as we know it? And, if so, what makes that easier for you? Does the secular world view of earth and time affect this for you?

For me personally my concern is how we collectively as Christians read scripture and interpret it to the world. There is ALOT that gets repeated by very well meaning Christians that is blatantly incorrect scripturally. We repeat often what we've heard others say but rarely dive into what scripture actually teaches.(I have been guilty of this many times sadly). I do not believe scripture is teaching creation days were literal 24 hour periods. Therefor I wont repeat as scripture. Personally I am indifferent to how much time elapsed. Im more concerned with the order of events and that God almighty is the divine creator and not time and space. Again I think timing/dating is a zero sum game. Chronology is superior to understanding our past.

Also, why is it your view that the burden of proof is on those who apply the same 24 hr day that the world has known and experienced since the beginning of man to the scriptures in the first chapter of Genesis, rather than on those who want to make it something different?

Because it is a very specific claim. One that inst supported by scripture. The Hebrew word for day, yom, has multiple meanings. Its just not being communicated a time elapse and so to teach it those teaching have the burden of proof. Not those who dont believe it.


I don't think we could prove it either way. While I see where disbelievers would choose this, I struggle with how believers get here.

To me it's a little comical that people (not you specifically) claim they believe in God and all His creation, but want to limit His ability to create it in the time the scriptures we have say He created it!

To be honest I dont think people really think about this that much. They probably just repeat whatever they were told. The young earth model has been promulgated primarily as a referendum against evolution but its a terrible argument to use. Far better ones exist with far more support.

---

On what day did God create time?

Was it in the beginning? Did the creation of light include the creation of time? Because Einstein taught us that light and time are somehow intrinsically bound together in ways that can only be explained with math, and cannot be understood with logic.

Why do we assume that time worked the same way that it does now throughout all of creation? What if time was working very different on "the first day" than it was "on the fifth day"? How do you start thinking about the length of the time of a day if time doesn't even exist in the way that we understand it.

I find it interesting that God created light first. Because the most powerful physical force in the universe is the speed of light in a vacuum. The C in E=mC^2.

C is constant to all observers. The speed of time experienced and the shape of space will all morph and conform to the power of C so that light is constant to all observers. That is just truly mind-boggling. C is the very foundation of the stuff that makes up the universe. But, somehow light is also subject to the pull of gravity, in that it can't escape a black hole. And time is also subject to the force of gravity, in that the speed of experienced time is different depending on how much gravity you are exposed to.

This stuff is so complex that it is very difficult for the mind to comprehend what is happening, and I postulate that it is physically impossible for the human mind to grasp WHY all of this is happening and why these relationships exist.

With all of those questions that are unanswered about our physical existence now (we can't even decide whether light is a particle or wave, or why the light particle thing acts like a wave, or whether or not the cat is dead), how are we supposed to extrapolate that lack of knowledge into an understanding of what the universe was like when these things were being built?

The big bang theory says all of that happened at once, but doesn't really provide any proof that this is true. In fact current studies about the size of the Universe and how it is moving thanks to new imagery provided by the most modern space telescopes are making the smartest astrophysicist start to question whether what we concluded about big bang has any credible evidence at all.

The entire question is a mind-screw that doesn't really help us understand the world better.

What is better is to try and understand what the author is teaching about creation. And those lessons are interesting. I like the Bema podcast on the creation that goes through some of that. I think that pondering the lessons taught about creation in Genesis are way more valuable to contemplate than being so arrogant as to try and decipher how things physically worked in the very beginning.

Finally, you talked about man and woman being created in the beginning. Was that man, physically, and woman, physically? Is it possible that our spiritual beings that are housed in our physical bodies are different between male and female? Is so, why? If not, why not?

I find these metaphysical questions to be interesting to ponder, and worthless to argue about.

Do check out Bema.

Good stuff. I wonder if the speed of light is the processing speed of the universe.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Good stuff. I wonder if the speed of light is the processing speed of the universe.

---

I have heard this postulated before. Kind of in the way that you are insinuating, that we are in some form of simulation or something. Things just can't move faster than light, because the Universe doesn't know how to "process" things that are moving that fast.

I have heard the speed of light described as the universe's speed limit. Which is also interesting. It operationally acts as a form of a cage, making it impossible for anything from our part of the universe to ever reach other parts of the universe.

But then I study things like the Nimitz Tic Tac event, where there is something that seems to be able to accomplish things even light can't do, and I just give up on believing I would ever be able to really understand all of this. And that's ok.

And, if these things are beyond my comprehension, then why do I think I can use that same limited capacity brain and ever fully grasp what actually happened during creation?

Do I think that God put dinosaurs on the earth to trick people for some reason? No.

Do I think that God is incapable of speaking the universe into existence in 144 hours? No.

What actually happened in creation? I think the answer to that is the same one to the question asked to George Washington on the Delaware River about what kind of meat is in hotdogs.

One thing is for certain. The more we learn about the universe, the more we realize how ignorant we are.

Well said!

I like your earlier point about these are good things to ponder but bad things to debate.

In regards to us being in a simulation. I think people often project that as our reality because we can understand simulations because we can create them. And if we can create them then it stands to reason we are in one. But I think it's probably the opposite. The "simulations" we can create are dumbed down versions of our larger reality. Almost like a shadow pales in comparison to what is creating the shadow.

But we certainly due to seem to exist in a fabricated reality. Shocker that's the Bible teaches. In regards to light being our processing speed. Things can't go faster than the speed of light because data has to be processed. And the processing speed is the speed of light. So if things were to approach the speed of the light the data gets altered which is what we see happen in physics. Time and space are relative.

Which it's no surprise either light was created in the first day. As that was set for the processing speed etc.

What else few discuss but is fundamental for our reality to exist is sequences. Data is processed in sequences. Whether that be our DNA or computer code or light. If there was no sequence you can't fundamentally have a logic processed code. Everything would be trying to be processed simultaneously.

But it begs the question what produces or maintains sequence? It's not time in of itself. But rather the order in which things were encoded. Which leads me personally back to what I believe the point of the "days" in creation are for. To establish proper sequencing of data.

Another mind bender is light photons don't accelerate to the speed of light. They just move at the speed of light. So again it seems to be an e eternal driver outside our universe and we perceive it as the processing speed.

Again I think "simulation" is probably a poor description but for lack of a better term. We can almost be assured we live in one and Jesus is also the progenitor of it. If a human created a fully functioning AI simulation and avatares(incarnated) themselves into that simulation how would he prove to be the creator to the AI entities? Well the most obvious answer would be to manipulate the computer code in real time in a way only those outside the program could. Which I believe we clearly see taking place with Jesus' miracle. Like calming tbe waters on the sea during a storm. "Even the waters obey Him" well ya he owns the code.

And if this begins to sound far fetched our literal beings are only functional due to DNA code. Which is really 3D computer code.

And you're also right about the more we learn the more we realize we know absolutely nothing. 3i/atlas proved we know diddly squat about interstellar objects.

I think as Christians with the mandate to make disciples we have this underlying fear of not being able to provide an answer. It's as if we think not knowing disparages the Gospel. And so well meaning as it may be people concoct really poor arguments to do God a favor and try to answer challenging questions. I think it would personally be more beneficial to simply say "I don't know".

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Why has God deceptively made a mature earth that seems to contradict his word?

---

To make it a matter of faith. Heb. 11:3

There are a lot of ridiculous, "deceptive" things in the Bible that we simply believe. The sun stopping mid-course, a donkey talking, water into wine, and people rising from the dead. All against every natural principle we have. We know what is "natural" in order to identify what is "supernatural."

---

Why make it a matter of faith? Is there more value in believing something with less evidence than there is in believing something with more evidence?

A couple of reasons I think. First, so that man has nothing to boast about - that they found God through their own wisdom. For this reason, God purposely makes his ways foolish.

1 Cor. 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

Second, why make anything a matter of faith. Yes, I think there is value in believing someone with less evidence than there is someone with more. It testifies your trust in that person. I would be much more proud of my child sharing their toy with another kid when I was not looking than when I was. Or saying no to drugs out of my presence than if I were standing right in front of them.

To what extent? Man can invent all manner of beliefs that have even less evidence than the Christian God. Beliefs that appeal even less to wisdom or that promote an even deeper human ignorance. When is believing the foolish thing . . . . Well . . . Foolish?

A person with absolute belief in a false god spurred on even more sincerely by the overwhelming lack of reason and evidence for said god is demonstrating an even more foolish and even more blind faith - yet, you wouldn't hold this person in high esteem for their unwavering unreasonable belief, right?

In other words, if we are called to be foolish, how are we to protect ourselves from false ideologies, charlatans, and lies?

Yes, there is value in belief without absolute evidence. But, I fail to see why a belief is more valuable as evidence decreases.

I too would be proud of my child for sharing a toy while I was not looking. However, if my child observed this other child using toys to hit other kids, then I would be proud of my child to not give the disruptive child another toy to use as a weapon.

Let's say I wish to hire a house sitter. Maybe it is a good thing for me to trust someone with the responsibility to watch my house. Would it be foolish to ignore information (good or bad) about this potential house sitter and their trust worthiness?

Now, let's say it's a baby sitter and not a house sitter. Am I increasing the 'goodness' of my action by hiring and trusting the person I know least about?

Well your question was why make it a matter of faith. Now your question is how do you get this faith - at what point is a belief...believable. Some are born with it, some receive it when reading the Bible, or attending a church for years. Jesus likens it to the wind - "it blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes." So all I can suggest is go where the "spiritual wind" blows. The passage above indicates that God calls the humble. And elsewhere "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

And it's not believing a foolish thing. It is the wisdom of God which makes the wisdom of the world foolish. You may have a certain technique or method to conclude that your beliefs about the world, good and bad, truth and error are all wise, but you will not know God through it.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Another mind bender is light photons don't accelerate to the speed of light. They just move at the speed of light. So again it seems to be an e eternal driver outside our universe and we perceive it as the processing speed.

---

I like this. I have heard it say that light is already moving at the speed of light when it is created. That is just so weird. It isn't created, and then accelerates to C. Light IS C. It starts at C at its very beginning. What the hell is this stuff, anyways?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think as Christians with the mandate to make disciples we have this underlying fear of not being able to provide an answer. It's as if we think not knowing disparages the Gospel. And so well meaning as it may be people concoct really poor arguments to do God a favor and try to answer challenging questions. I think it would personally be more beneficial to simply say "I don't know".

---

---

I think a lot of that is based on the idea that you need to be able to give an account for your faith, which is a command. But, that doesn't mean you have to be able to explain the universe, which is impossible.

Embracing mystery is one of the tenets of most forms of Christianity. The Eastern Orthodox does it best, and this embrace of mystery along with their strong tradition of observing rituals, is one of the reasons I think they are having a small resurgence in the US. Catholics do it as well, as can be seen in the Mary thread. I think the Existentialists do it best, and Kierkegaard basically helped same my theology when I was a college kid dead set on being able to defend the possibility of a young earth.

But, pondering these things give us some much deserved humility in my opinion. When asked by Einstein with his brilliant mind spent his whole life wondering about the building blocks of the universe said "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Yes, there is value in belief without absolute evidence. But, I fail to see why a belief is more valuable as evidence decreases.

---

I like this a lot. Going to steal this one.

I think that there is a significant difference on what people will consider to be evidence, which leads intelligent people to disagree on these things.

For some, belief that some of the crazy things in the OT actually happened, like a 72 hour day, is just too large of a hill to climb. The evidence of falseness is that the book teaches something no one has been able to record, and can't be fathomed to have happened, so the entire book needs to be thrown out.

I think that the truth of the message is so profound that the fact that the Bible is truth is self-evident. That the love of others is the most rewarding thing in life, and the only thing that should trump the love for others is the love of the God that teaches that the love of others is the most rewarding thing in life. Most of the rest of Christianity is just different ways to enact that truth in your daily life. And, the reason why the love of others is so rewarding is not because the others are so much like you as a human, but because they are so much like you in that they also carry that spark of divinity that has in its core a deep seated yearning to love and to be loved.

The truthiness of that message has, I believe, proven itself to be true. It's a wonder to me that the foundation of that teaching is easily found in the oldest of the old testament, over 5 millennia old.

On the other hand is a reflection of the world where our understanding of nature trumps the truth of the message provided by the Bible. One thing that I learned as I got older is that our understanding of nature is every bit a shaky quicksand as any theological foundation that requires some amount of faith.

No, I agree with you. There is a giant difference between 1) fully believing something that is unprovable as a matter of faith, with the measure of virtue being how deeply you choose to believe something, and 2) believing something that is difficult to believe, with the measure of virtue being how absurd it is to carry a belief.

tl;dr - Flat earthers are idiots, and to be pitied, not praised.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Well your question was why make it a matter of faith. Now your question is how do you get this faith - at what point is a belief...believable. Some are born with it, some receive it when reading the Bible, or attending a church for years. Jesus likens it to the wind - "it blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes." So all I can suggest is go where the "spiritual wind" blows. The passage above indicates that God calls the humble. And elsewhere "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

And it's not believing a foolish thing. It is the wisdom of God which makes the wisdom of the world foolish. You may have a certain technique or method to conclude that your beliefs about the world, good and bad, truth and error are all wise, but you will not know God through it.

---

I think the questions are inseparable. Why make it a matter a faith if the inevitable consequence is that most people will simply misunderstand what they are supposed to believe?

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck" - Thomas Jefferson

This is a harsher way to put it than I might. But I agree with where he's going here - how can there be any expectation that most of us will not victim to absurdities?

The blowing in the wind analogy doesn't alleviate the concern. If you drop a dozen boats together in the ocean and give them time, tides and winds will push them to a dozen different locations. Faith as a 'follow it wherever the wind takes you' feels more like new age spirituality than rigid dogmatic objective truths.

I don't know what to tell you. I think 1 Cor. 1 answers why it's a matter of faith. Christianity is reasonable, but you won't find it by reason alone. You can't reason yourself to God. Probably why Thomas Jefferson rejected all of the miracles and supernatural accounts and made his own Bible.