Properly basic beliefs. (Reformed Epistemology)

[Welsh cake]

It was just your statement that he was "nothing more than a bankrupt apologist" that set off a red flag because it's plainly not the case. I never said reading all his works was required either, It just seems to me like such a statement would only come from someone who hasn't read his work or has read very little - A lot of people including his critics admire him at least for his effort and sincerity and he's done a heap to challenge naturalists.

Didn't I already admit retrospectively I was being overly-abrasive and dramatic in my second post? Treading old ground is tedious so let's stop.

Where does Plantinga say that naturalism is incoherent because it doesn't acknowledge God? Go find that for me please, I must have missed it...

His work on the evolutionary argument against naturalism? Naturalism Defeated? An argument so malformed and chalked full of errors he had to re-formulate it, and still other creationists and even proponents of intelligent design such as Michael Ruse have criticised its shortcomings.

And like you need your whole life to read enough to get a realistic opinion, your melodrama is another red flag.

Now was that really necessary void? You've smart enough to know I was speaking metaphorically, i.e. a rhetoric figure of speech.

What argument are you referring to?

What are you addressing? I'm not responding to any argument I'm merely begging the question as to whether or not Plantinga used his reasoning skills to come to the conclusion of the premise that Christianity is true.

Rowe's argument intended to show that an omnibenevolent God probably did not exist, Plantinga presented a case where it was logically possible for God and Rowe's E's to coexist - That is all that is required.

And how does Plantinga not contradict himself by making the proposition that god is unable to create a universe without cause and effect or consequences (evil) if he is by nature and definition all-powerful?

Omnipotence is one of the characteristics attributed to God in Christianity orthodoxy is it not? That does not resolve the paradox either; it merely changes the definition of an omnibenevolent God into something else that the argument's premise does not contain. I recall a long time ago reading someone's response (a theologians’ I believe, but please don't ask because I can't remember) that the only tempting answers that could one arrive at was either God does not care, does not know, or simply lacks the power to stop evil in the world, all three are addressing a being that is not recognized as 'God' and therefore are unacceptable non-answers. That's why when I used to be a theist I argued that God had a unknown plan for evil and natural evil from the beginning of time, not this free-will nonsense, both are bullshit though I must confess.

Where did he simply assert that? And what argument are you referring to? His arguments for belief in God being similar to belief in other minds was flawed, but anything but an assertion, like always he builds a comprehensive case for his beliefs.

Umm, the nature of necessity? The work we are (or were) currently talking about am I right?

Why should Plantinga be so criminalised for trying just like everyone else to build a comprehensive argument for his positions? Hate him all you like but you could never justifiably say he didn't give it a fucking decent attempt.

I don’t hate him. I just don't think he's contributed anything worthwhile to philosophy. My informed opinion is all.

Yeah I've read more criticism than his actual work and at no point during his work or any refutation did I come across the accusation that he changed the meaning of epistemology from "A theory of knowledge and justification".

Then why seek to reform it in the first instance void? You've done this several times now, its getting so tiresome to the point where I feel like I've hit one big berserk button with you and Plantinga. Would you also like me to provide citations that some theists substitute the label "universe" for "god" also?