I thought I already admitted that inferring the most reasonable conclusion doesn't necessarily mean that person is correct. In the world of science, for instance, inferring the most reasonable conclusion is often overturned in future discoveries that upend our understanding of things and cause a restructuring of what we consider to be truth. Here (your line of questioning) we are evaluating spiritual truth that has nothing to do with scientific inquiry. It is instead based on the revelation we have received theologically, the veracity of the record in the Bible, and our experiences in life. "Inferring the most reasonable conclusion" can take us to false conclusions and confidences, but in this case, the case of detecting the morality of God, I am 100% certain in His morality, as you asked me.

Does inferring the most reasonable conclusion enough times really get us to 100% certainty though? You're absolutely correct that people can be certain about things that aren't necessarily true. Isn't it possible that the most reasonable conclusion could actually be incorrect?

If we were living in a primitive culture back before the invention of telescopes, we might very well reasonably infer that the earth was flat, because we would look around and see a flat horizon. "The earth is flat" may be the most reasonable conclusion for us to make, but it would still be an incorrect conclusion because we would be lacking necessary information. If that were the case, given the information available, we might say, "I'm 100% certain that the earth is flat. I allow no room for the possibility that this conclusion may be incorrect, and there is nothing that could convince me to change my mind." Would that be a responsible position for us to take, knowing that we may not have all the relevant information?

After "inferring the most reasonable conclusion" 100 times, we can say that the issue is resolved and determined. It's the way science works (enough experiments to confirm the hypothesis lead to a conclusion of certainty) as well as even historical judgment (we have enough reliable evidence on the existence of Alexander the Great that we can deem his historical reality to be at 100%). I'm just doing the same thing.

And if members of other religions are coming to the point of 100% certainty, then one of us is wrong despite our confidence. After all, the pre-Copernican scientists were 100% certain of their evaluation of the earth as flat. In their case their certainty and confidence was no predictor of the veracity of their position. People can be certain about what is true and certain about what is not. It's not their certainty that determines truth, but such certainty doesn't guarantee error, either.

I'm just confused as to how you're actually coming to this conclusion. You lay out a method here, but say that you can use this method to "infer the most reasonable conclusion". To me, "infer[ring] the most reasonable conclusion" sounds much different from coming to a conclusion with 100% certainty. I try to infer the most reasonable conclusion on things all the time, but I don't think I'm ever attaining absolute 100% certainty on anything. On the other hand, you say that you can reach 100% certainty on at least this particular belief.

The method you're laying out sounds to me like a reasonably useful method for "infer[ring] the most reasonable conclusion", but I'm still having trouble making the jump from there to reaching 100% certainty as you say you have. So my question still stands. If I asked a member of a different religion how they came to 100% certainty about the morality of their god, they may very well lay out a method very similar to the one you just laid out. If both of you are using the same method to come to 100% certainty on contradictory beliefs, can the method really be a valid way to reach 100% certainty?

It's as I said to you in a previous post: "There are tests for truth that we use across a spectrum of disciplines: intention, ability, character, consistency, bias, corroboration, and weighing adverse evidences. We do these things all the time in an attempt to determine truth in science, history, a court of law, economics, and so also in religion. We use our brains, we weigh claims and evidences, and we infer the most reasonable conclusion." We seem to be going in circles, now. You're after something that you're not getting from me, and we're retracing our own tracks in the forest.

I agree. So how can you be sure that you're the one who is correct if both of you are using the same method to reach your conclusions?

Either one of us is right and the other wrong, or we are both wrong, but we can't both be right. Truth can't be self-contradictory.

What would you say to a member of a different religion who gave a similar answer as to how they've come to 100% certainty about the morality of their god?

It's because I've been over this ground so many times. I have studied the Bible, searched my thoughts, read books, been through my own crises of faith, conversed with others, observed the work of God in the world, weighed the evidence, and through it all I have become SO convinced of the truth of truth of the Bible (through evidence, experience, and confidence in the authority of the Bible as God's word). I am just as confident in the morality of God as I am in the existence of the real world and my existence in it as a conscious being.

What method can you use to arrive at 100% certainty on a belief?

I ask because I don't think there's a single belief I hold that I would say I have 100% certainty about. To me, 100% certainty means I don't think there's any possibility I could be wrong and nothing could ever change my mind, but I can't think of any situation in which I could justify that level of certainty. I can get almost negligibly close to 100% on some things, to the point where it's not really worth the time to think about, but I don't think I can ever get all the way there.

How are you arriving at 100%?