Reply #148: mapping the argument

[USArmyBJJ]

Original argument: The only acceptable evidence is evidence that is scientifically testable. (At least, this is the line of argument that I was responding to.)

Rejoinder: We often accept evidence that isn't testable. For instance, we accept historical evidence despite our inability to observe history. We accept that Socrates existed despite the fact that we can't test that theory. We just apply different methodologies to arrive at the conclusion.

Your response: But Socrates isn't a religious figure! Jesus is!

I hope you can see with this map that your argument is not responsive to the rest of the debate. The point of the original argument was just to demonstrate that there are non-scientific means of coming to know things. We can argue the historicity of Jesus, but it wouldn't matter because it's beside the point. If I'm off-base here, explain it to me. I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong. But "Jesus wasn't real!" really isn't a rejoinder to an argument about the limited scope of scientific inquiry.

EDIT: I deleted an unwarranted ad hominem.