For example, say there is a lottery with 10 million people. Only one of them is a Christian. The Christian wins.
The P(Christian winning | chance) is 1 in 10 million.
The P(Christian winning | Christian God existing) seems unknown. However, can one say that P(Christian winning | Christian God existing) is above P (Muslim winning | Christian God existing). The second statement seems true intuitively but something about it feels off as well since ultimately there’s no independent evidence the supposed Christian God (if he exists) would do that or meddle around with lotteries in the first place.
My general question is this: if there is no direct evidence for something, can we speculate it’s likelihood based on other characteristics we know about the hypothesis? For example, can we say that the Christian god is more likely to hit an atheist with a lightning bolt than a Christian?
When the question is framed with another example, the answer seems even more unclear. For example, suppose we know that Alex is a human being and gives gifts. From this, can we say that P (Alex giving his father a gift) > P (Alex giving a stranger a gift)? Intuitively, it seems yes, since given our background knowledge of human beings (i.e. closeness to their father), it would make sense that Alex is more likely to give his father a gift than a stranger. But what if this was some new proposed being? Like the Christian God? In this case, it seems like we have no background information, but we do have other information ABOUT the christian God that might suggest he do some actions that would favor Christians over others. I fail to see how those actions would be "ad hoc" either.
For example, if I was to reason that a Christian god is more likely to strike an atheist with lightning than a Christian, I would be reasoning this based off of the knowledge that the Christian god loves people who believe in him more than people who don't. This reasoning doesn't seem like a speculation invented from thin air.