Hell

[OnlyNatural]

Suppose that person S believes some proposition Q on the basis of some other set of propositions P={P1, P2, ...}. P is evidence for Q if S rationally believes P and P supports Q. P supports Q if an argument (be it deductive or inductive) with P as the premises and Q as the conclusion is good. (Of course then there is the question of what constitutes a good argument, and I can go into that if you like.)

I wish I had taken some university courses in philosophy and logic, instead of exclusively life sciences and social sciences. Then I would be more equipped to have this kind of discussion. But I understand that each premise must be valid and preferably backed up by other observable evidence (ie. 'Men are mortal;' evidence: we all die).

I've seen examples on these forums of deductive reasoning for God's existence, such as:

(1) If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
(2) Morality exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Don't bother discussing this argument, though, it's being dealt with here. I'm just wondering if this is similar to the kind of reasoning you'd use, for God or other such claims outside the realm of science.

I don't think evidence is always necessary in order to rationally believe something. That doesn't mean that it is not sometimes necessary or sufficient in some contexts (indeed, it is in many).

I agree that it's possible to believe something if you reason it out to yourself, despite a lack of evidence. But even if an argument appears valid or reasonable, and makes great intuitive sense, it does not necessarily say anything at all about whether something is true or actually exists in reality.