Nice try at a dishonest "sleight-of-hand" side step. This article doesn't mention the book by Plantinga that I presented in my earlier post. The book I mentioned was just published in 2012, and your article here is from 2011 from a 24 year old kid with a BA in philosophy from University of Wisconsin who regularly embarrasses himself on international forums. By contrast, Alvin Plantinga has a PhD in philosophy from YALE and was professor of Philosophy at University of Notre Dame for 28 years! He had his PhD in philosophy before your legendary (sarcasm free of charge) Chris Hallquist was a twinkle in anyone's eye.Why Alvin Plantinga’s ontological argument isn’t even halfway good:
"So, not only does Plantinga’s argument fail to prove the existence of God, it fails even in Plantinga’s stated goal of showing that belief in God is reasonable. Both of those points are totally obvious once you realize that you could give a Plantinga-style argument for any purported necessary truth, in particular truths of mathematics. If Plantinga’s argument had been something tacked to a bulletin board on a graduate student lounge as a joke, it wouldn’t have been bad as academic in-jokes go. But as a serious argument it’s worthless."
I also notice a two hour time span between your posts to me, and your language to me suggests that you were frantic, even desperate to find something, anything, to offer as a rebuttal. You failed. Again.