No. I don't take Plantingan reformed epistemology too seriously. It all ends up at Agrippa's Trilemma. Which all ends up getting down to the Reformed Epistemologist - if they're honest and not dicks like Plantinga & Craig - to saying that theism and atheism have to be admitted as being equally rational to to them.
You have to be very careful what you take as an axiom, and what you mean when you take on that axion, i.e Are you accepting it as an ontological truth or methodologically useful? God doesn't seem to me to be either self-evidently extant nor explanatorily useful (because it can "explain" ANYTHING), and there are very good reasons to reject it.
You have to be very careful what you take as an axiom, and what you mean when you take on that axion, i.e Are you accepting it as an ontological truth or methodologically useful? God doesn't seem to me to be either self-evidently extant nor explanatorily useful (because it can "explain" ANYTHING), and there are very good reasons to reject it.
