What’s the point of bringing this up?
It seems to be an attempt to muddy the water by bringing up beliefs about other people’s beliefs. So it’s no longer what John and Jane believe about immortality and salvation (and the reason they believe it) … it’s what Jane believes about John’s belief about immortality and salvation.
Why stop at Jane? What does Guido believe about Jane’s belief about John’s belief about immortality and salvation? What does Sarah believe about Guido’s belief about Jane’s belief about John’s belief about immortality and salvation?
If anything, it shows the limits of demonstrations. Jane might might describe some event which appears to show that John does not believe in I&S. Is it sufficient? Is it a true account of the event? Is Jane convincing? Is she reliable? Is one or a few incidents sufficient to show anything conclusive?
If you take a gods-eye-view then he either is or is not president. But if you take a gods-eye-view, then there either is immorality or there isn’t, there either is salvation or there isn’t.
The point is that humans don’t have a gods-eye-view and therefore they find ways of dealing with it and one way is fuzzy or multi-state logic.
If I was in a remote region, I might not be able to demonstrate that Trump is president for any number of reasons … I don’t have access to the necessary resources, the people don’t trust me, I’m not a convincing speaker, they don’t understand what a president is, it’s irrelevant to them, etc.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Totally obsessed with “the optimal or the only rational”.