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

Probably just as well - Because it was a duff point. But your knowledge of it is indisputably superior to his. Do you believe in, or accept, the existence of Coca Cola?What is the difference between accepting the existence of Coca Cola and believing that Coca Cola exists?

Already asked and answered., in about a dozen replies to you already in this thread and in detail in Message 73.

There is no theological claim, nor non-scientific method of discerning it's veracity, mentioned in Message 73I'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?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Depends on the claim and that is why I specifically listed several examples in that message.Perhaps you have some definition of a theological claim with which I am unfamiliar.

In message 73 you listed a bunch of claims that could be tested via the scientific method. I'm interested in how the varacity of theological claims that cannot be tested scientifically are assessed so pick any theological claim you like that best exemplifies these non-scientific methods you speak of. What methods can be used to determine if this theological claim is likely to be true? Let's focus on those pertaining to things for which you consider the methods of science inappropriate or (to quote you) "totally useless".

That is why I included other examples.For example; " But the scientific method is totally useless and worthless to test whether or not those stories worked to help create a peoples or culture."So we can use the scientific method to see if such things actually happened.To see if they worked to help build a peoples or culture you ask a Rabbi.

No Nukes said, "All facts are accurate including those few that appear in a Sponge Bob cartoon. So yeah, I'll grant you your tautology."I am talking about the Bible preserving the time and location of the domestication of wheat, even to the location being on a volcano, despite 6,000 years of passing the story on verbally. It also preserves the battle between worship of Yahweh and the then current religion.

Indeed, but you say that because you are not some ancient bronze age levitical priest. Your Straggler, you are a man of the times!What do you suppose 1000 years from now humans will think of our scientific fumblings?It reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live skit:
The Antique roadshow 2550{a guy has a old imac blueberry on display}
"I brought this in but dont know what it is"
{Expert ancient Earth artifacts } "yes I havent seen one of these in forever, it was very popular in the late 20th century, it is what is known as a porn storage device."

But ther study of "peoples or culture" falls under anthropology, archaeology, sociology and suchlike. To say that the application of scientific methods is inappropriate or "totally useless" to these areas is patently false. What non-scientific methods do Rabbis deploy to test the veracity of theological claims that cannot be tested scientifically?I'm interested in how the veracity of theological claims that cannot be tested scientifically are assessed. So pick any theological claim you like that best exemplifies these non-scientific methods you speak of. What methods can be used to determine if this theological claim is likely to be true?If you want to use a Rabbi in your example of these methods of assessing theological claims that cannot be tested scientifically, feel free.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Our "scientific fumblings" are still scientific. They are derived from the most accurate and reliable methods available to us.Whilst the phrase "I don't believe in God I believe in gravity" is admittedly somewhat simplistic - It does convey the fact that our beliefs about gravity are grounded in proven methodologies in a way that theological claims can only dream of.I too don't believe in God but do believe in gravity. Because I want to believe things that are likely to be correct rather than wrong.

I'm aware that is what you believe.

If you believe differently can you explain how theological claims pertaining to "peoples and cultures" that cannot be tested scientifically are assessed using non-scientifc methods in order to determine whether these claims are likely to be true?If you can't do that - Just say so.

When people differ over theological claims or interpretations it is common to split and form different denominations or sects.That is why there are perhaps 40,000 different flavors of Christianity today according to some websites.This exhibits the use of belief in place of evidence in assessing theological claims.

Once again, asked and answered.It is immaterial whether or not the examples I mentioned were factually correct (I keep pointing out to you that "true" is pretty meaningless in many cases), it is whether or not a Rabbi believes they helped create a people, a culture.You seem hung up on the meaningless trivialities.

I would say that they are assessed by the Spirit of God and also through the word of God.