Abstract

Alvin Plantinga's tasks include illustrating that there is no objection to the rationality of theistic belief that does not presuppose theism's falsity, and that it is epistemically possible that theistic belief have warrant in a basic way. However, given Plantinga's conclusion that the co-dependence of the de jure and de facto objections prohibits the atheologian from showing that theistic belief is irrational, Plantinga is subsequently unable to argue for even the epistemic possibility of theistic belief being properly basic without also arguing for its truth. This paper will explore the circular nature of this argument as well as possible alternatives.