Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[GrandizerII]

Just chuckling like mad at the argument ...

A:You have no evidence
S: Looks! Maths! Scary symbols! Probability and Bayes theorem you'll have accept me on! Not at all garbage-in-garbage-out!
A: You have no evidence.
S: You aren't accomplished as me at logic. You refuse to listen. You aren't critical thinkers. <swans off>
A: None of which changes the fact that ... you have no evidence.

Ah, the "no evidence" card. That's the card unthinking, unsophisticated, critically-thinking impaired atheists play. It is trivially easy to prove you wrong: Let's try an easy one related to the earlier post: Luke. Why is Luke not evidence?

In the context of Bayesian reasoning, it's not evidence if we both don't agree it is evidence. The real world point of Bayes' theorem is to provide posterior probabilities of explanations or whatever given what we both accept to be true.