Evidentialism can be explained in a somewhat comprehensive logic as only believing what can be seen and what can be proven by tangible evidence. Nonevidentialism is not necessarily the contradictory of evidentialism; however, it permits for more individual confirmation in order to validate one’s conviction. The class that we are currently in is about faith and philosophy which brings these two arguments to the center. More often we are discussing sacred assurance and devotion in the actuality of what we deem as God. After careful review and extensive reading and research, I have come to the conclusion that the nonevidentialist argument falls most within my faith in God and spiritual conviction. Through this paper, the reader will come to understand…show more content… The owner did not have sufficient evidence to prove that the ship was worthy of making the trip but believed beyond conviction that it was well within its capability of doing so. According to evidentialism, a person is totally justified in believing something if there is evidence to support it that outweighs the evidence there is to disbelief it (Conee & Feldman, 87). Because the owner believed that it could make it just by doing what he always did with the boat. No one could prove otherwise and therefore this is what led to the predicament that the owner was in with the perishing of his…show more content… Clifford does not contribute to principles and a view being reserved as does Kierkegaard, but he does speculate that these same beliefs can be suppressed for use at a later time. Clifford assumes that in the situation of the ship owner, taking the time to believe in inadequate data is erroneous and a person should not hinder their belief by crushing their uncertainties and evading additional examination. It seems to me that Clifford’s argument is that all beliefs are powerful in one way or another. Actions grounded on principles without confirmation can and more than likely will cause hurt to ourselves and possibly others around us. It has been drilled in our heads that it is always incorrect for anybody to trust anything without