I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

I have no problem continuing to try to help you.As I have repeatedly you use the same methods you use for anything else to determine whether something is helpful or a hindrance. If you wish to test the scientific validity of something you use the scientific method but that is a totally useless method when you try to apply it to nonscientific issues.

Exactly. I take it for granted, as did the writers of Genesis. That's an inference, not an effect, per se - i.e. not an observed effect.My point, should you ever choose to address it, was that there is a difference between accepting somebody else's inferences which conform to our own observations and believing in something that we can not observe.

So what methods can be used to determine which theological claims are likely to be true?

It's not an effect - It's the explanation for that effect based on an understanding that is far in excess of anything the authors of the bible could possibly have possessed (short of divine revelation which it appears was lacking in their understanding of gravity) The authors of the bible could observe apples falling. So can you. But there are many direct observations you take for granted that they could never experience and a vast array of information that was unavailable in biblical times but which permeates the modern world in ways that are unavoidable. You can view images of satellites orbitting a spherical Earth, you can examine a model of the Earth called a "globe", you can fly half way round the world and back again. Newton's key idea that apples falling and planets orbitting are the result of the same phenomenon (i.e. gravity) was unheard of in biblical times, revolutionary in Newton's time but is entirely ingrained in modern thought.The set of information and observations available to you regarding gravity are so far in excess of those available to Moses that it would be virtually impossible for your understanding of gravity to be in the same ballpark as his. For it to be so would require a level of wilful ignorance on your part that would make creationists look like they are on the path to enlightenment regarding bilogical diversity. Why you are so determined to insist on a such an incredible level of ignorance is a mystery.

And I was talking about effects. Why does getting you to read what I say have to be like root canal? Why you fixate on a nit instead of addressing my point is an equal mystery.

Have you ever seen footage of the moon landing?Here (in case you have somehow missed it) is some moon landing footage showing a gravitational effect. Namely - Objects falling on the Moon. Do I really need to point out that this is an observation available to you but not Moses.... Link

Do I really have to keep repeating that that isn't the point?

Actually you started off talking about understanding effects:

quote:

---

"the writers of Genesis understood the effects of gravity about as well as I do"

---

Hence the whole "understanding" angle....

So you admit you're just trolling.

Your understanding of gravitational effects is superior to that of Moses (at least in part) because the set of observations of gravitational effects available to you is so much greater than was available to those at the time the bible was written.So actually it's very relevant to the question of comparable/relative understanding.

That depends on the specific claim and whether or not it matters if it is true.

No. Not at all. I'm disputing that you could possibly be in possession of the level of ignorance you are claiming regarding gravity, the effects of gravity and understanding of said phenomenon.

Coca-Cola is much more available to me than it was to Moses. That doesn't mean I drink more of it than he did. My point was not about comparable/relative understanding. It was about belief versus acceptance. Care to address that?

You're avoiding the point of the post. You're asking me to repeat ad nauseam what I have already clarified. If you don't like my answer boo hoo but you're not going to get a different answer to the same question.

I'm interested in how the varacity of theological claims is assessed so pick any theological claim you like that best exemplifies these non-scientific methods you speak of.Pick any theological claim you like.What methods can be used to determine if this theological claim is likely to be true?