On Hell and Forgiveness

[Neo-Scholastic]

That reads like a polemic. I wouldn't be so certain. There are things that are evident about the world. People can reason from some of those observations that God exists. You may believe that that specific conclusion does not follow from particular observations, but saying flat out that there is "no evidence" inverts the relationship between evidence and the conclusions one could possibly draw from the evidence. As such it is an unfounded assertion. Let me show you the difference...

Step 1: There is something evident about the world.
Step 2: Some conclusion follows from what is evident.
Step 3: What is evident supports the conclusion.

versus

Step 1: No conclusions can be drawn from something evident about the world.

To be evidence  concerning a proposition (like 'God exists'), the observation has to change the probability of the proposition being true. It *isn't* simply that the observation is consistent with the proposition (if the negation is also consistent, for example). I have yet to see one piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction. So I deny that Step 2 applies in the case you want to apply it to.

Well, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. What you say is indeed true. Consistency does not necessarily prefer a specific conclusion. In situations where multiple conclusions could be drawn from what is evident, it is not unreasonable to consider one true...particularly if the same conclusion follows from multiple observations. In situations where it could go either way, the stance that either the negative or positive is somehow always the default seems susceptible to the belief holders personal inclinations.

Now as to whether a probabilistic argument favors the existence of God, I personally do not see how one can assign those probabilities in a fair and objective way.

The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.