Right..We don't base our view on a matter on mere given possibilities. We need more evidence to reach a conclusion.
Only if we wish to claim/conclude that the phenomenon is the truth. Otherwise we merely reach the rational conclusion that the more likely explanation should be accepted as the rational explanation until such time as observations no longer fit that explanation.
You, in your weird paranoid mindset, would have to confirm with the state lottery commission whether this person is lying or not.
So if I told you I won the lottery you would simply believe me? If anyone told you they had won the lottery you would simply believe them? Seriously?
You require evidence more than that it is just a possibility that they are lying. You require exactly what I require--evidence for the claim that an account is either a lie or an error of perception.
you misunderstand... I wouldn't claim that they are lying. It merely resins the most likely explanation until such time as evidence/observation arises that no longer matches that theory. If someone verifies that they have won then this no longer fits the theory that they have lied.
This is precisely why lottery companies require vefification... because people do lie about it.
And the company does not claim that people do lie, only that until the win is verified they assume it is not true.
Why do you struggle with this notion?
But you just said a mere possibility needs no evidence because it is not a claim. So now you say the account itself is the evidence you need to claim that the account was a party. Much as you might say that a claim of winning the lottery is evidence of lying about winning the lottery. But seeing that so-called "evidence" doesn't decide between the possibilities of a timeslip or a party, you now require more evidence to weigh the account itself in your favor. Which is exactly what I provided. Evidence weighing for the proposition that it was a party event instead of a ttimeslip.
For hopefully the last time, no-one is claiming it was the party, only that it was more likely to be a party than a timeslip.
And the evidence in favour of the themed party being more possible than a timeslip simply that a themed parTy is a rather mundane occurrence... even if you have never attended one you can not be so sheltered as to not accept that people do hold themed parties... Bond, Disco, Titanic, toga etc. Are you seriously saying you are not aware of hem actually occurring?
So it doesn't need specific evidence of a party at that particular location to make the explanation of a themed party the more likely explanation. Only if you want to claim the themed part as the definite truth would you need to provide evidence, as you did. But one does not need to do that if one is merely offering it as a possibility. And past experience provides the necessary rationale for accepting the themed party as the more rational explanation of the two.