Theism's philosophical self-defenses stand in relation to a potential attack. A country has coastlines, and if the government has reasons to think of an attack, it will deploy armies or defensive systems in readiness to defend its territory. That image serves as a metaphor in the philosophical defenses of theism. The role of theism is to denote a foundation to hold up as the source from which belief in God comes (McCloskey, 1968). Their role resembles how a country uses defensive rings to protect the everyday life of a community within its borders. In light of Foreman's sentiments through a memoir dubbed, "Approaching the Question on God's existence" I believe the burden of proof rests on the legitimacy of the defendant in view of the anti-theistic challenge. The anti-theistic challenger should establish credentials to earn the right to challenge central version in the theory of theism. .
For the positive atheist case to succeed, a range of classical arguments has to refute the classical argument of God's existence. Although sometimes called proofs, it only can lay legitimate claim to that name. This is the ontological argument presented by Evans and Manis. The two authors argue that God is something in which nothing greater can be conceived. One may conclude as a matter of logic that God exists, his existence being a necessary requirement of his unsurpassable greatness. .
The priori character of this argument involves no appeal to experience the unique truth in the theological history. Most philosophers reject that argument since they argue that God is the greatest conceivable being while it does not apply anywhere in existence. Other ontological arguments classify God as the main target of atheistic literature. Evidence drawn from certain empirical observations or experiences of the world concludes that God exists, with this being the only rational explanation sufficient to explain the occurrence.
