MT: p>q,~q, :.~p
It seems to me that it tells me no new information to be had here that I can not deductive ly infer merely by S not being a theist. So is someone actually justified to either affrm God does not exist or even to justify withholding affirmation merely by saying that they have not ever heard any convincing arguments for God. In other words, can saying that you have not heard any convincing arguments for God be sufficient justification to deny the existence of God or even to sufficiently warrant withholding affirmation of the proposition of God existing?
To me it is a vacuous throw away statement that gives no actual justificatory reason which one cannot simple just deductively infer if someone is not a theist, and as such has, no justificatory power.