Anthony Flew begins his book, "Theology and Falsification," with a parable of two explorers who come across a certain clearing in the woods. In the clearing lies a cultivated garden to which the two explorers suppose about. The Believer supposes that a gardener tends to the plot while the Skeptic thinks not. After supervision and careful investigation of the garden, one of the explorers, the Believer, states that an "intangible, invisible, and insensible  gardener tends to his beloved garden. The other, the Skeptic, supposes that if an intangible entity as described by the believer tends to the garden, then the gardener might as well not exist (Theology and Falsification, 96). The qualifications made by the Believer could range in the thousands and Flew attributes his "death by a thousand qualifications" notion to this flaw, rendering an over-qualified assertion to be meaningless. The supposition the Skeptic makes is how Flew manifests and premises his argument; that without rational and applied scrutiny, assertions are meaningless. To be meaningful, Flew states, "to assert that such and such is the case is necessarily equivalent to denying that such and such is not the case  (98). The religious hold utterances such as "God has a plan" or "God exists" as undeniable assertions. Flew draws upon negation to denote that assertions are not assertions if they are not falsified and their assumed truths negated. Therefore, Flew states that religious, "cosmological" utterances held by the religious are anything but assertions. Rather, theological utterances are so eroded by qualifications that they are no longer assertions. Flew's formulation of his argument is as follows: 1. For an assertion to be meaningful, the assertion must deny the falsehood of the assertion. 2. The denial of the falsehood of an assertion requires the assertion to be falsifiable. 3. By definition the falsifiability of an assertion requires the ability to state the definite conditions under which an assertion would be false. 4. Therefore, for an assertion to be meaningful, there must be definite conditions under which an assertion would be false. (From 1-3) 5. Those who make theological utterances that appear to be assertions (continuously) qualify the utterances in the face of attempts to falsify the utterance. 6. (Continuous) qualification to evade falsification amounts to the refusal to establish conditions under which their utterances could be false. 7. Therefore, those who make theological utterances refuse to establish the definite conditions under which their utterances could be false. (From 5,6) 8. Therefore, those who make theological utterances are not making meaningful assertions (From 4,7). 9. Theological utterances can only be meaningful as assertions. 10. Therefore those who make theological assertions are not making any sort of meaningful statement (From 8-9, 97-98) F