{ 1 } - he knows that there is a God. { 2 } - he can prove God's existence to all or nearly all rational beings. { 3 } - both of the above. { 4 } - none of the above.
{ 1 } - he knows that there is a God. { 2 } - he can prove God's existence to all or nearly all rational beings. { 3 } - both of the above. { 4 } - none of the above.
The point of Plantinga's article is to defend this combination:
* I know that there is a God, and
* I can't prove God's existence to all or nearly all rational beings.
He tries to show that sometimes we can know something but not be able to convince others.
{ 1 } - he knows that there is a God.
{ 2 } - he can prove God's existence to all or nearly all rational beings. { 3 } - both of the above. { 4 } - none of the above.
{ 1 } - he knows that there is a God. { 2 } - he can prove God's existence to all or nearly all rational beings.
{ 3 } - both of the above. { 4 } - none of the above.
{ 1 } - he knows that there is a God. { 2 } - he can prove God's existence to all or nearly all rational beings. { 3 } - both of the above.
{ 4 } - none of the above.