The turn of this century came in stride with Humanity's most radical scientific progression in history. Accompanied with science, has come the thirst to rationally validate all our beliefs with evidence. This is the principle by which the evidentialist devotionally abides. The general societal acceptance and obedience to this notion has become a replacement for religious dogma. The augmentation of methodical thought has been a healthy merit for the progression and attainment of knowledge; however, this is not to say that the rational mind does not have its limitations.
             Many religious sceptics are quick to disregard the existence of God on the grounds that, for one, its possibility becomes illogical when confronted with reason, and secondly, it lacks evidence to support its position. It will be my argument to reject these so called weaknesses of theism on the grounds that one is justified to take belief in a Deity through means of faith. I will argue that the atheist and agnostic's reliance on the evidentialist theory does not constitute a strong case in denying a Deity. In taking this path, I will be shedding light on some of the predicated assumptions that evidentialism is built on. My hope is that this argument will persuade the evidentialist to, at least, re-evaluate her unrestricted confidence in the supremacy of reason, especially in deciding on matters of the abstract unknown.
             The criticism of theistic beliefs not adhering to reasonable evidence has been a trend amongst atheist and agnostic scholars over the centuries. It may be the claim that keeps most religious sceptics at bay. If one were to ask an atheist or agnostic her reasons for not having a belief in a Deity, a common response would be, "there's no reasonable evidence to prove, or imply the existence of a god, or gods." The consumption of this claim has been growing and continues to grow in the general public. This is, perhaps, credited ...