This part is confusing me for a bit and I’m having trouble finding a correct answer to it.
Say you are an atheist and are playing a poker game and you get dealt two straight Royal flushes. You attribute this to luck and think wow you must be lucky. Your belief in god does not change.
Say now you are a Christian, realize you have a poker game to play today, and pray to Him. You then get two straight Royal flushes.
Clearly, the evidence with respect to the Royal Flushes is the same. The probability of each scenario is the same. So the only thing that could be different is how plausible each person finds the idea of a God who wants those royal flushes to happen.
This involves judging how plausible it is for this kind of God to exist. But what is the correct answer to this? If there is none, will an atheist and theist be in forever disagreement? I am aware that Bayesians use the concept of prior probability but what should this prior probability be?
What confuses me is how an explanation that involves Satan helping the Christian as a joke is seen as implausible. But we have no prior evidence for either of these things. So how can one say that a particular supernatural explanation is plausible.