Problem – what does it mean to best fit the evidence?
2 Cor. 5:19 – “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”
You invite a Lutheran, Reformed, and Catholic (only because I know they will accept the invitation) to the bar and discuss this verse and you will get three (if not more) understandings that best fit the scriptural evidence. They all can’t be correct as that is absurd/contradictory.
I’ll admit that they all could be wrong. The Lutheran, Reformed, and Catholic could be dead wrong about the verse, but that doesn’t mean the best evidence supports agnosticism or atheism toward the verse. We are all still stuck here with contradictory views on the verse assuming it best fits the evidence.
I’m with you that something like inference to the best explanation or abduction, or “smoking gun” historical explanations (varieties of best evidence interpretations?) are great rules of thumb (perhaps methodological rules to inquiries) that actually provide great confidence in certain explanations, but they do not suppose to get rid of contradictions and thus absurdities. In fact, the absurdities within an explanation best fitting the evidence are necessary to push science/knowledge forward…