Plantinga- solecistic,sophisticated sophist of woeful,wiley woo!

    Alvin Plantinga ranks with Sylvia Brown[e] as a purveyor of woo,even though he uses symbolic logic and tricks of rhetoric.
    His EAAN, as noted in the preceding article, is just one of his fusillades against reason.
    I suppose he'd add that why, the Devil has us making errors as he states that perhaps the Devil has something to do with natural disasters. That's one unneeded explanation added to another that is supposed itself to be the primary cause and the sufficient reason but is only a mystery, and which with its convoluted, ad hoc assumptions violates the Ockham, and with God not having referents as Creator and so forth and having incoherent,contradicted attributes as the ignostic argument notes cannot possibly exist, being in the same category as square circles and married bachelors!
     He overlooks that adaptation  is for the near optimum -never necessarily the best.Thus, our faculties need no divine guidance to find the truth. That we do by trial and error, using intersubjectivity to make for objectivity.
      Per Lamberth's inherency argument, objective reality, regularity,chaos, order and the descriptions -laws- of Nature,M.L.] inhere in Nature, and thus the putative Deity would perforce depend on them,being then Himself the secondary cause, because like ethics , they are independent of Him.  
      Ti's superstition per the Lamberth reduced animism= theism argument that that is what theism is and so is as superstitious as full animism and polytheism! We  need no supernatural intent behind natural forces or Nature herself: any posited intent is thus superstitious.
        He maintains to account  for imperfections, omni-God makes flourishes , whilst the limited one has to make things more perfect! This absurd argument answers itself!
        Also, as those imperfections can be human or natural disasters, he accounts for evil is that it is for our free wills. No, we have determined volition. Anyway, he uses the greater good and the unknown reason arguments, whch themselves are one  f rom ignorance, which with the one from personal incredulty underlies other theistic ones.
          Per Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven , the Deity could have had it such that we'd have determined volition and a guarantee never to do wrong.That would be consistent but no hobgoblin of  little minds.
         He claims that we have the sensus divinitatis- inward sense of the Deity, and that gives us the warrant to have as basic the Deity as basic as other minds and the exterior world. Hardly, or no need would have arisen for arguments for Him. And we non-theists do not accept Him as real due to sin but ,because no evidence exists for Him. Theists proffer misinterpretations of evidence as evidence for His very existence.
      He claims with that that should upon reading the Scriptures or some other religious experience occurs, one has an epiphany, that underpins the sensus.Hardly, as those very Scriptures contradict themselves and reality! They contradict science and history. They exhort harmful morality for the most part.
      Plantinga waddles in the mud of  woo.The shame is that his creative mind does not work on projects that would help humanity but instead helps keep so many enthrall in superstition!
     What would you add? Any dissent?