This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
As far as I understand it, what Plantinga has produced, is not an argument that God exists, proceeding from premisses that a non-believer could accept; rather, it is an argument that it is rational for a believer to accept the existence of God as a premiss, which does not require argument in support of. It cannot convince a non-believer that God exists, and does not seem intended to do that; if successful, the most it could achieve would be to convince a non-believer that believers are not being irrational if they accept the existence of God without any rational or empirical evidence to support that belief, but even if completely successful could not rationally compel a non-believer to believe. As such, it is not an argument for the existence of God, and I this article is incorrect in treating it as if it was. --SJK (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)