Discussion Post
Consider the evidentialist argument against belief in God:
• If there is no good evidence for belief in God, then you shouldn't believe in God.
• There is no good evidence for belief in God.
• Therefore, 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?
The response must include a reference list. One-inch margins, double-space, Using Times New Roman 12 pnt font and APA style of writing and citations.