Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[JesseB]

Actually the point that falsification determines whether a claim is scientific is blatant bullshit he's trying to pull to support his other bullshit arguments. If I claim that I had dinner at Old Chicago on Oct. 12th. paying with a credit card, that is in no way a scientific claim. It is easily falsified, though.

But in that example, Old Chicago is part of the natural world and therefore your story could at least potentially be verified.  If your claim had been concerning the 'supernatural' whatever that turns out to be, I can't begin to imagine how that could be verified.

But that's not my point. My point is that there are a vast array of claims that are very falsifiable that are not scientific claims, despite Steve's adamant argument to the contrary.

You are simply rephrasing the falsification principle--which is simply the difference between what is a scientific question and a non-scientific question.

(my bold)

I find it funny that @SteveII who seems to have no substantive understanding of what science is, or how it is properly applied, thinks he's qualified to tell everyone the difference between a "scientific" question and a "non-scientific" question. More so since he consistently attempts to use science (incorrectly) to back up his "non-scientific" claims. I mean for real it is so laughable it could be a Monty Python sketch.