(August 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(August 30, 2018 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote: 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.
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.
I agree. But to believe in things that are not in evidence and for reasons that are countered by actual facts is a delusion as well as being wrong.