Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Simon Moon]

I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it.

It has been refuted. If you want to open another thread on the subject, we can discuss.

But here's the interesting thing, Plantinga himself said the following about his own argument:

“Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion”

Why do you place more confidence in the argument than Plantinga himself?

Basically what Plantinga is saying here is, "Since I already believe in 'God' for other reasons, my version of the Ontological argument, despite the fact that the premises don't support the conclusion, reinforces my already existing belief."

Not impressed...