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

I don't believe in gravity. I accept gravity.I accept gravity because I can see its effects, which are predictable unlike the purported effects of "God". I expect that the writers of Genesis understood the effects of gravity about as well as I do. They didn't mention it but I don't mention gravity in every post either.

Human wisdom is all we have. It's only human wisdom that decides gods are talking to us.

That's where you're wrong. I don't understand gravity but I accept the conventional understanding of it.That's my whole point here: you can accept without understanding. You can accept that somebody understands how an airplane flies even if you don't understand it. Creationists try to equate that acceptance with faith but it's different. We accept the explanations of people who can produce results. If you can build an airplane that flies, I'm inclined to accept your explanation of how it flies. If you can produce miracles at will, I'm inclined to accept your explanation of which god is responsible for them.

You overestimate the mass media. I don't have a TV. My radio is on for about two minutes a day to wake me up and tell me the weather, so I don't have to look out the window. I may have read a couple of "popular science books" a couple of decades ago; I don't recall.My point is that my understanding of gravity is in the same ballpark as the Bible writers - i.e. up in the stands, not on the field. Moses would be sitting right beside me if he was still alive - and we wouldn't be talking about gravity.

That's an unusually poor argument. They had no knowledge of Australia so the concept of "upside-down" people was no problem for them. As it happens, I passed a construction site the other day where the sign was upside-down so I assumed that the contractor was Australian - no problem for me either.

They didn't need an explanation for a concept they didn't have. I don't need an explanation either, whether I have the concept or not.An "explanation" that I don't understand but can only parrot is not so very different from not having an explanation at all.

It isn't indisputable because I'm disputing it.You're misusing the word "know". I don't "know" any more about gravity than the parrot that can repeat the same rote "explanation".

Ah... so the goalposts shift from I do know more to I could know more.I could also drink a Coke every day and Moses could not. However, I don't.

No.Maybe you should go back and read what my argument in this thread is. Note the sentence, "I expect that the writers of Genesis understood the effects of gravity about as well as I do," in Message 7. Note the phrase "effects of gravity."

An effect is that apples fall on your head.

The writers of Genesis were writing about certain aspects of the creation of the universe - particularly humans, animals and visible phenomena such as the sun and moon. They were not trying to explain anything other than to say that "God did it". It is not at all unexpected that they wouldn't mention things that they took for granted, like gravity. What part of ABOUT sneaked past your reading comprehension?

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.

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.

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

So you admit you're just trolling.