What's the point of bringing this up?John believes in immortality and salvation. He flat out points out that he does. Now, Jane can claim that she believes that John does not believe in immortality and salvation.
So, in fact, does John believe in immortality and salvation or doesn't he? Is Jane right or wrong about what she believes?
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.Same with John believing that Trump is now president of the United States. Either he is or he is not. What could possibly be more black and white than that?
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.But when it comes to demonstrating that what you believe about immortality and salvation is in fact true...where is the either/or evidence for that?
Totally obsessed with "the optimal or the only rational".Or in regard to Trump's job performance in the White House, why aren't we able to pin down the optimal or the only rational reaction?