The Deceptive Mechanisms

[Undeceived]

That all depends on your definition of "unfalsifiable" or "confirmable". We can't use the scientific method, so what can we use? This is a black-and-white issue. It doesn't matter what I "expect", what matters is whether the event can be confirmed by something other than human logic. So can it?

When your first task is creating novel definitions for inconvenient words then you're probably already screwed. Why can't we use the scientific method on a claim of rain falling? Again, absurd. Of course the event can be confirmed by something other than human logic (you know, like barometers, cups full of water, radar, clocks etc)- but that won't mean much to you or I, will it? Your question amounts to "can you consider something without considering it?"

It's nothing at all to do with evidence- untestable, unfalsifiable or otherwise, as a criticism of evidence. Whether or not there -is- evidence of something is entirely independent of the whims of the interpreter. For example, whether or not I give it any thought (or have access to the data) - those barometers will have done something.

Again, how do you judge the evidence? One way is the scientific method. Another is the human mind. Is there a third?

---

Yes, there's evidence to show they wrote those documents themselves.

Then the believer has evidence in addition to faith. Suppose you read a couple small articles about Jews in Nazi territory, written by reputable sources. You then browse through The diary of Anne Frank (which has questions regarding its authenticity). Are you not more likely to believe the diary when you have supporting articles? Are you not even more likely to believe given articles by unsympathetic Nazi authors--that mention Anne Frank by name? How is it unreasonable, then, to trust the Gospels of Jesus Christ?