Evidentialism is the Way
Proof of the existence or non-existence of God has been a major debate for centuries and
many philosophers presented their arguments and views supporting both sides. They came
up with many concepts and theories and at the same time others developed counter
arguments challenging those claims and concepts. There are basically two camps namely
evidentialism and non-evidentialism that focus on developing arguments for and against
the existence of God. Evidentialism takes the position that our belief in God should be
justified only based on objective evidence. It emphasizes that a belief can be justified only
when there is objective reasons or evidence. On the other hand, non-evidentialism takes
the stand that belief in God should be justified not just by objective evidence and therefore,
a belief can be justified even when there is no sufficient evidence to prove that belief
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010). In my point of view someone’s belief should
be based on sufficient and believing in something without objective can lead to wrong
conclusion that would not be beneficial to the society.
Clifford, Anselm, Aquinas and Paley put forward their arguments for and against the
existence of God based the concept of evidentialism. Clifford highlights that anyone to
believe in some concept based on insufficient evidence is always wrong no matter when or
where the person makes this decision. Clifford argues that our beliefs will have impact on
others because of the way we try to follow them and the case these are false, they will be
