question archive Consider the evidentialist argument against belief in God: 1) If there is no good evidence for belief in God, then you shouldn't believe in God
Consider the evidentialist argument against belief in God: 1) If there is no good evidence for belief in God, then you shouldn't believe in God
Subject:SociologyPrice: Bought3
Consider the evidentialist argument against belief in God:
1) If there is no good evidence for belief in God, then you shouldn't believe in God.
2) There is no good evidence for belief in God.
Therefore, 3) You shouldn't believe in God.
Do you think this is a sound argument? If not, why not? Where does the argument go wrong? If you do think it is a sound argument, then what, if anything, could you say to the theist in order to try and convince the theist of the argument's soundness?
