This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cleaved a sentence from the first paragraph, "Plantinga's works are often considered to be responsible for the resurgence of theist philosophy in recent years," because it violates the weasel terms policy of WikiProject Philosphy. Upon proper citing of those who "often consider" this should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.206.52 ( talk) 09:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
According to his autobiography, his education was a bit more complex than it is made to seem here. He attended Jamestown College for one semester Fall 1949. Then When his father was offered a job at Calvin he moved there and attended for the following semester before being offered the scholarship at Harvard. I know these details seems trivial, but since he is such a major figure in contemporary Philosophy, it seems as if it should be shown that he did go straight to Harvard.-- Bkcraft 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Plantinga is listed as having studied w/ Nancy Cartwright at Michigan- that can't be right- she's much younger than he is and earned her PhD from Illinois-Chicago.
As far as I know, Harvard itself doesn't give scholarships. They only offer financial aid. (Their argument: "All of our students deserve scholarships.") However, it is possible he got a scholarship from other organization for which he used to attend Harvard.
I have re-added material to this article that was removed from the Naturalism (philosophy) article. Plantinga's paper was deemed "a bad source" by User:Daelin. Of course, this contradicts that fact that Wikipedia is supposed to document, rather than take a side on, philosophical issues. — goethean ॐ 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
"Although the argument has been criticized by some philosophers, like Elliott Sober[65][citation needed], it has received favorable notice from Thomas Nagel,[66] William Lane Craig,[67] and others." - Should this sentence say anything byond "This argument is controversial amongs philosophers"? That the opponents are decribed as "some philosophers" could mean, that there aren't many, eighter because most philosophers don't deal with it or because most agree. -- 89.26.98.56 ( talk) 15:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Any chance that the paragraph could be expanded beyond two quotes from other people? What is the nature of Plantinga's argument? Guettarda 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Look, the issue isn't whether Plantinga is wrong, but whether this particular argument deserves an article in itself, however wrong it might be. I can think of two reasonable justifications for branching off an article: 1) there's too much material to comfortably fit here or 2) the argument is often searched for by people who aren't looking for Plantinga. As far as I can tell, though, neither one of htese possible justifications applies. Do you disagree? Al 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
If you say so. Frankly, it's really not much of an argument. As with so many of Plantinga's arguments, it's best received by those who already agree with the conclusion, but not necessarily taken all that seriously when preached to those not already in the choir. If we stick it in Naturalism (philosophy), though, it's going to have to deal with the issue of size there. Al 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Al 20:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that this section should be here. While Plantinga did argue for the position, he by no means created it. If the argument is that he added greatly to it, then add parts of his work that do so. A summary of the general position, and not his specific work in it add no real value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.206.99 ( talk) 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Not enough citations of those who disagree with or disprove Plantinga's ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.122.161 ( talk • contribs).
Since the article is on Alvin Plantinga, it only needs to describe his views. A criticism section would be more appropriate in either a book article on Naturalism Defeated?, an article on the argument itself, or a section in Naturalism (Philosophy), when the argument is eventually re-added there. In any case, the article does at least cite Naturalism Defeated?, which is an overwhelmingly more serious treatment than any commentary you might find by Dan Dennet. Dextris Dei 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Dextris, unless you are a friend or associate of Professor Dennett, calling him "Dan" seems false. And although some might see Plantinga as a charlatan as well, the request for other viewpoints is not an ad hominem attack. We should note that Naturalism Defeated? *is* about his ideas. I've looked at some of your pages external to Wikipedia, and it would seem to me that you are either crazy or that you see irony as the height of humor (not an attack, just an observation)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 ( talk • contribs)
Incidentally, I find merit in Planinga's argument, and I think that evolution is almost self-evidently true. I just don't believe in philosophically naturalistic evolution. So Plantinga's argument is amenable to more than just Evangelicals. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am amenable to having criticism of Plantinga's argument, although I think that a better exposition of it is more important. I havent read the book on the argument yet. I also think that the exposition of the argument should be located at naturalism (philosophy). — goethean ॐ 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be on point. It doesn't matter who finds his ideas acceptable. I find them risible. But I would also expect Wikipedia to include views contrary to my own, say, a counterview to dialectic monist naturalism (I am a daojia Taoist). It is a matter of presenting a variety of views- and in the article on those espousing the view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 ( talk • contribs)
I restored this:
I believe this is an accurate summary of Plantinga's argument. Am I mistaken? Al 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Accuracy first, beauty second. If you have some specific improvement, please suggest it. Al 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
An article about the
Evolutionary argument against naturalism was created yesterday. But it is
currently nominated for deletion. If one can contribute to the discussion it would be appreciated. --
Leinad ¬
»saudações!
17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this sentence should be reworded:
He has argued that anyone who holds to the truth of both naturalism and evolution is irrational in doing so, an argument that finds much support within the intelligent design movement.
Referring to naturalism and evolution as "the truth" in reference to Platinga seems out of place, from what I can gather. Ejectgoose 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've found it practically impossible to find out if Plantinga is human -- ie, if he's married, has children or single or what. I couldn't find a single source that would tell me, so I eventually gave up.
Some time after I did this, I bumped into the fact that he has a wife and a daughter. He mentioned his wife in one of his talks on www.veritas.org/media's programmes, and his daughter is mentioned here: http://www.truthbook.com/news/labels/Alvin%20Plantinga.html%7Cthis. Does anyone know -- and have a good source for -- anything else about his personal life? I think they may be worth at least a mention. Hairouna 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to verify any of this information, but I do have a few more facts that could be added under personal details. His daughter is a professor at Louisville Seminary (PCUSA) and has written a book or two on Jonathan Edwards. I believe she goes by the name Amy Plantinga-Pauw. His father, Cornelius Plantinga Sr., had some connection to Calvin college, but I'm not sure what. His brother, Cornelius Plantinga Jr., is the current president of Calvin Seminary and has written several books on theology (he also has a page on Wikipedia which could be linked to). I'm only throwing that out there in case anyone is interested in verifying/citing it. Stewart 8:51, 19 October 2007(UTC)
Plantinga doesn't claim that it is possible that every person goes wrong in every possible world. He claims that there is a possible world where God exists and every person goes wrong at least once. Think about the debate between Mackie and Plantinga and you will understand why. Plantinga admits to J.L. Mackie (his chief protagonist on this issue) that there ARE possible worlds where everyone always does what is right--morally perfect worlds. But Mackie's claim is that God and evil are logically incompatible--i.e. there is no possible world where both exist (just like there is no possible world where square circles exist). All Plantinga has to do to refute Mackie's claim that God and evil are logically incompatible is show that there is at least one possible world where they both exist. If there is such a possible world, then, contrary to Mackie, it is possible for God and evil to co-exist (again, if there is even one possible world with square circles, then square circles are logically possible). This difference is important. Now Mackie replies that if there are worlds where God exists and people always make the moral choices, why doesn't God create those worlds? Plantinga replies with transworld depravity: it is possible that the pattern of counterfactuals true at the actual world are such that God cannot actualize one of those perfect world. Anyway, the point is that the way the article stated transworld depravity was wrong in a subtle but important way. Plantinga only needs to show that there is ONE possible world where God and evil coexist to refute Mackie. He doesn't have to show that there are NO possible worlds where God exists and everyone makes the right moral choices all of the time. He doesn't have to make this stronger claim to refute Mackie and he doesn't. In fact, he concedes up front that such worlds exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.160.226 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone have a pronunciation for the name Plantinga in IPA? Cpk1971 ( talk) 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Plantinga has been tagged as an Intelligent design advocate. I know he is a member of ISCID and I think he's a critical stance towards methodological naturalism. I this enough to be an advocate of intelligent design? What is the definition of this term? I wonder because I have never seen him deny himself theistic evolution or embrace creationism (the idea that god created through several acts of special creation life on earth). When I think of an advocate of ID I have rather people like Behe in mind who deny explicitly evolution (the central claim of ID). I'd like to hear other opinions on this, additional sources are of course welcome.-- Student of philosophy ( talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think advocate is slightly too strong. It is safe to say that he shares some of their underlying principles; in particular, he supports their fight against naturalism. He is explicitly referred to as an advocate here, but I wouldn't consider that a reliable source. His detailed positions are in that fabulous book, but the entire debate is available here. I believe McMullin quite nicely spells out the differences and similarity between Plantinga and ID advocates. As a footnotes, he writes:
The most obvious difference scarcely needs be stated. Plantinga is one of the most highly respected philosophers in the U.S., justly renowned for the quality of his scholarship and the care and rigor of his arguments. I bracket him here with the creation-science group, incongruous as such an association may seem, only because of the broad similarity of their theses in regard to special creation. I very much fear that this similarity may be sufficient to encourage creation-scientists to co-opt his essay to their own purposes.
Emphasis was added to highlight the fear that people may be trying to add that category this article in order to lend some credibility to the ID movement; if that is at all possible ... Vesal ( talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sceptical about this whole section. I don't think Plantinga supports ID and this smacks of "guilt by association". At the very least it should be renamed "Stance in respect of ID". NBeale ( talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
ROFL! "2:51 pm - Plantinga mentions Michael Behe, calls the argument serious. Dennett appears stunned, understandably. It's not clear whether Plantinga intended to be provocative by speaking up for this 'much maligned' intelligent design theorist. Plantinga says the ID argument is compelling but inconclusive as the complexity of the cell is more probable on theism than naturalism (but it isn't clear how much more)." Andrew Moon (February 23, 2009). "An Opinionated Play-by-Play of the Plantinga-Dennett Exchange - The Prosblogion". . dave souza, talk 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This edit summary states that it is "outrageous intellectual dishonesty" to make it appear Mackie was referring to Plantinga, but I thought Mackie was explicitly referring to Plantinga's theodicy. I don't have the book at hand, but this source seems to agree. Could someone explain? Vesal ( talk) 00:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest editors should actually read Mackie's book before quoting it. Mackie is simply not discussing Plantinga at p. 154, and citing this passage as if it is, merely advertises ignorance or, as I said, outrageous dishonesty. His considered thoughts on Plantinga's defense appear 20 pages later, and I have added them to the article.
The underlying problem is that this passage is framed to tell a story -- that humble Plantinga overthrew the terrible atheist academics with his transworld slingshot, and that even the atheists have had to cravenly admit their errors and retreat to evidential arguments -- omitting the inconvenient fact that many philosophers are underwhelmed by Plantinga's argument, and foregrounding the narrative aspect when it rests entirely on one slender internet citation (from Jeff Lowder). 271828182 ( talk) 18:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've found an extensive quote of the relevant passage here, and can confirm that it does not makes no mention of Plantinga. I would further note that the 'concession' is merely the starting point of Mackie's argument, not the conclusion of it. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Plantinga is a design proponent:
Plantinga is a design proponent. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"With respect" commensurate to the evidence you have presented (i.e. absolutely none whatsoever), I'm "fairly sure" you have no idea what you're talking about.
I am getting completely sick of your unsubstantiated hand-waving. Either come up with some RSes that actually support your claims, or your further comments will be ignored and/or reverted/archived (per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
NBeale:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
What we put in the article must be supported by WP:RS. From "X said P supported D in 2000" and "Y said P lent moral support to D" in 2003 we cannot infer "P supports Y". This is simple logic. NBeale ( talk) 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't let your strong feelings in this matter interfere with your ability to think. "X said in 2001 that P supports ID" does not imply "P supports ID in 2009". Furthermore the other refs, using terms like "wedge ally" and "moral support" are clearly NOT stating that he is an out-and-out supporter of the IDM. P. is a world-class philosopher with a vast written output and if we attribute philosophical views to him it should be on the basis of his clear statements and not potentially outdated and contentious statements by third parties.
NBeale (
talk)
09:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Utopial: your clear attempts to give equal validity to ID "makes your contributions to these discussions virtually meaningless."
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
<unindent>
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Rather than what some quite partisan people claim about Plantinga, let's talk about what he actually says, NBeale ( talk) 09:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is Plantinga himself that is making a number of 'bad arguments':
More WP:DUCK. More denialism from NBeale. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I think the article is pretty OK on this as it stands. There should not be a sub-section on ID because P. says v little about it explicitly. Gould's review may have been "devastating" but that does smack of POV and since this review was not of a book P. wrote it give undue weight to say Gould's review (described by X as "devastating" [ref]). NBeale ( talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
To read the article text, one would think that Mackie had abjectly surrendered to Plantinga -- we get his "concession" quoted, but no mention of the "another question" that this concession was setting up, and we now have his "simply incoherent" quote moved into footnotes. This is not giving WP:DUE weight to the balance of Mackie's views on Plantinga's arguments -- it is outright cherry-picking. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Mackie may not be the only philosopher to disagree with Plantinga, but he is certainly the most notable. The question is whether any dissent (including Mackie's) is notable enough to be included in the article. The book citation I added ( Meister, Chad (2009). Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Routledge. p. 134. ISBN 0415403278. ) very explicitly states that most (Mackie being an exception) contemporary philosophers have accepted Plantinga's argument and that for most mainstream philosophers of religion, the "logical problem of evil" is pretty much settled. Gabbe ( talk) 08:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This section really needs to be rewritten. For example, it says:
Plantinga's argument has two basic stages. In this first stage he argues that the atheologian has failed to demonstrate that God and evil are logically incompatible. In the second stage he argues that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically consistent. He does so by constructing a model that includes both the existence of God and the existence of evil. Among other things, his model includes the possibility of "transworld depravity". His conception of transworld depravity amounts to the claim that there is a possible world in which an individual has morally significant freedom and does at least one morally wrong action.
We say the argument has two stages, but we offer neither of them. The section amounts to: "Philosophers say the existence of a good God and evil is a contradiction. Plantinga says it is not." Does anyone have the sources so it can be written up properly? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.
To Nbeale: the problem with writing this article is that it's a complex subject and people need a background in philosophy to get the vocabulary right. I have studied philosophy but not this area, and I have none of the books in front of me, so editing it properly is impossible. However, I did remove some of the most obvious problems from that paragraph in terms of the way it had been written. Your edits are serving to re-introduce them. For example, it is not any old god that was deemed contradictory, but a very specific type (omnipotent etc).
As for Mackie, his argument is key, and should not be removed to a footnote. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The article currently reads: "Most contemporary philosophers accept Plantinga's argument," with the reference (to Meister's book): "It is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted." The cited reference does not support the article text: it one thing to regard the logical problem as rebutted, it is another to accept Plantinga's argument. Can we get a better cite, or a rewrite of the sentence? 271828182 ( talk) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Robert Adams says that "it is fair to say that Plantinga has solved this problem. That is, he has argued convincingly for the consistency of [God and evil]." William Alston has said that "Plantinga [...] has established the possibility that God could not actualize a world containing free creatures that always do the right thing." William L. Rowe has written "granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God", refering to Plantinga's argument.
Nbeale, you changed that we know a god exists in the same way that we know other minds do, to a "similar" way. [7]
If not in the same way, what is the difference, according to Plantinga? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:OBVIOUS, there is nothing wrong with stating first Plantinga's involvement in Christian apologetics (it is arguably his main focus) and then stating what form these apologetics take. I would note that Christian apologetics#Varieties notes a wide range of forms. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
He is known for his work in epistemology, metaphysics, the philosophy of religion and for applying the methods of analytic philosophy to defend orthodox Christian beliefs.
I recently reverted a rewording regarding the acceptance of Plantinga's free will defense. I know that there are people who feel that because someone is Christian that by itself means that they can't make an unbiased statement on any topic connected with the philosophy of religion, but that argument is not in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Under WP:RS, a source is not deemed unreliable simply because their authors are of a certain persuasion or opinion. Furthermore, if there are reliable, contemporary, secondary sources indicating that Plantinga's argument has not been met with wide acceptance, I'd gladly welcome them in the article. Does anybody have such sources? Gabbe ( talk) 07:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The anon does not seem to be giving up easily. Perhaps my compromise version can be stable enough until we figure out a solution here. It is not really a compromise because the version I left it at is not acceptable to myself even, but I refuse to edit war with an anon. We either need to get the page semi-protected, or leave it like this until we have a better solution. I don't know what to do when an anon just reverts and doesn't even comment on talk. I think a gave a fairly detailed response which has not been addressed by this anonymous editor. This is not fair at all. Vesal ( talk) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've protected the page for three days to hash out the latest external link addition. Please stop reverting back and forth and have a discussion here first. If a conclusion is determined before the protection expires, please let me know and I'll remove it. Kuru (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Those who claim that "Plantinga is against science" should check their own paradigms. Seems that people here have fallen into the trap of setting "science vs religion", something that dates back to the Age of Reason when science was seen as an alternative to religion. The main paradigm in science today stems from a naturalistic viewpoint ; that is that there must be a "natural" explanation to everything. However, the problem is that naturalism cannot itself prove that there is nothing supernatural, thus adhering to naturalism means adhering to a belief. Prof. Puolimatka argues that the different philosophical viewpoints in science should be allowed to compete freely with each other (naturalism / supernaturalism) and their goodness evaluated in how well they explain the phenomena they study. Furthermore, Puolimatka points out that there has so far been no well-defined and crisp line between what is science and what is not. Thus, science that adheres to scientific methods but also does not exclude a supernaturalistic philosophical viewpoint (like Plantinga) cannot be excluded from science without falling into the loop of the inherited problems mentioned above.
(Text above based on the books by Finnish professor Tapio Puolimatka: "Usko, tiede ja Raamattu." Helsinki: Uusi tie, 2007. ISBN 978-951-619-467-0 and "Usko, tieto ja myytit." Tammi, 2005. ISBN 951-26-5347-8).
Tikru8 9:05, 9 November 2011 (EET)
"Those who claim that "Plantinga is against science" should check their own paradigms."
laughable. go ahead. do science non naturalistically. why do idiots like you even THINK you know what you are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8200:1767:DA00:8DFA:EF0B:73A3:BE77 ( talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
While science, by its nature as a methodology, must be accomplished naturalistically; that does not necessarily mean a scientist who also holds to a particular religious worldview is "against science." Whatever your opinion regarding the validity of religious worldviews, I find the above unsigned comment deriding the OP's statement as "laughable" and calling him an "idiot" as unhelpful, to say the least. I fail to see how insults serve to improve Wikipedia in any way. At the same time, as the OP's claim does not appear to be in the article, I probably shouldn't be feeding the attention given to this topic. The Famous Adventurer ( talk) 04:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is a nice video by QualiaSoup which readily debunks some of his claims on substance dualism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying philosophy of religion is the same thing as theology? Category:Philosophers of religion is its own cat. If you have sources saying he's a theologian, please add it to the article. Categorization should be verifiable based on the article text. -- JFHutson ( talk) 15:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Please compare the existing fragment: Although the argument has been criticized by some philosophers, like Elliott Sober, it has received favorable notice from Thomas Nagel with an alternative such as, for example: Although the argument has received favorable notice from, e.g., Thomas Nagel, it has been criticized by some other philosophers, such as Elliott Sober. Same information, different implications planted. So how about removing the bias from this statement? Thanks, Bansp ( talk) 13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alvin Plantinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alvin Plantinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is the section about Platinga being on local television a noteworthy event for this page? The fact that someone appeared on a local television show about a mundane news story doesnt seem like it warrants inclusion on an encyclopedia article.
This section was originally made by an IP editor, I removed it and explained why, and another IP editor reverted it without explanation. Im reverting back to the original removal and if anyone would like to say anything in defense of that section they can talk about it here. Rosencrantz24 ( talk) 08:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Plantinga never looks as cool as in that photo in other situations. The article photo should be one in which he does not look that cool, in order to be more realistic. 191.254.134.147 ( talk) 23:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I cleaved a sentence from the first paragraph, "Plantinga's works are often considered to be responsible for the resurgence of theist philosophy in recent years," because it violates the weasel terms policy of WikiProject Philosphy. Upon proper citing of those who "often consider" this should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.206.52 ( talk) 09:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
According to his autobiography, his education was a bit more complex than it is made to seem here. He attended Jamestown College for one semester Fall 1949. Then When his father was offered a job at Calvin he moved there and attended for the following semester before being offered the scholarship at Harvard. I know these details seems trivial, but since he is such a major figure in contemporary Philosophy, it seems as if it should be shown that he did go straight to Harvard.-- Bkcraft 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Plantinga is listed as having studied w/ Nancy Cartwright at Michigan- that can't be right- she's much younger than he is and earned her PhD from Illinois-Chicago.
As far as I know, Harvard itself doesn't give scholarships. They only offer financial aid. (Their argument: "All of our students deserve scholarships.") However, it is possible he got a scholarship from other organization for which he used to attend Harvard.
I have re-added material to this article that was removed from the Naturalism (philosophy) article. Plantinga's paper was deemed "a bad source" by User:Daelin. Of course, this contradicts that fact that Wikipedia is supposed to document, rather than take a side on, philosophical issues. — goethean ॐ 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
"Although the argument has been criticized by some philosophers, like Elliott Sober[65][citation needed], it has received favorable notice from Thomas Nagel,[66] William Lane Craig,[67] and others." - Should this sentence say anything byond "This argument is controversial amongs philosophers"? That the opponents are decribed as "some philosophers" could mean, that there aren't many, eighter because most philosophers don't deal with it or because most agree. -- 89.26.98.56 ( talk) 15:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Any chance that the paragraph could be expanded beyond two quotes from other people? What is the nature of Plantinga's argument? Guettarda 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Look, the issue isn't whether Plantinga is wrong, but whether this particular argument deserves an article in itself, however wrong it might be. I can think of two reasonable justifications for branching off an article: 1) there's too much material to comfortably fit here or 2) the argument is often searched for by people who aren't looking for Plantinga. As far as I can tell, though, neither one of htese possible justifications applies. Do you disagree? Al 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
If you say so. Frankly, it's really not much of an argument. As with so many of Plantinga's arguments, it's best received by those who already agree with the conclusion, but not necessarily taken all that seriously when preached to those not already in the choir. If we stick it in Naturalism (philosophy), though, it's going to have to deal with the issue of size there. Al 20:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Al 20:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that this section should be here. While Plantinga did argue for the position, he by no means created it. If the argument is that he added greatly to it, then add parts of his work that do so. A summary of the general position, and not his specific work in it add no real value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.206.99 ( talk) 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Not enough citations of those who disagree with or disprove Plantinga's ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.240.122.161 ( talk • contribs).
Since the article is on Alvin Plantinga, it only needs to describe his views. A criticism section would be more appropriate in either a book article on Naturalism Defeated?, an article on the argument itself, or a section in Naturalism (Philosophy), when the argument is eventually re-added there. In any case, the article does at least cite Naturalism Defeated?, which is an overwhelmingly more serious treatment than any commentary you might find by Dan Dennet. Dextris Dei 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Dextris, unless you are a friend or associate of Professor Dennett, calling him "Dan" seems false. And although some might see Plantinga as a charlatan as well, the request for other viewpoints is not an ad hominem attack. We should note that Naturalism Defeated? *is* about his ideas. I've looked at some of your pages external to Wikipedia, and it would seem to me that you are either crazy or that you see irony as the height of humor (not an attack, just an observation)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 ( talk • contribs)
Incidentally, I find merit in Planinga's argument, and I think that evolution is almost self-evidently true. I just don't believe in philosophically naturalistic evolution. So Plantinga's argument is amenable to more than just Evangelicals. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am amenable to having criticism of Plantinga's argument, although I think that a better exposition of it is more important. I havent read the book on the argument yet. I also think that the exposition of the argument should be located at naturalism (philosophy). — goethean ॐ 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to be on point. It doesn't matter who finds his ideas acceptable. I find them risible. But I would also expect Wikipedia to include views contrary to my own, say, a counterview to dialectic monist naturalism (I am a daojia Taoist). It is a matter of presenting a variety of views- and in the article on those espousing the view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.240.122.161 ( talk • contribs)
I restored this:
I believe this is an accurate summary of Plantinga's argument. Am I mistaken? Al 22:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Accuracy first, beauty second. If you have some specific improvement, please suggest it. Al 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
An article about the
Evolutionary argument against naturalism was created yesterday. But it is
currently nominated for deletion. If one can contribute to the discussion it would be appreciated. --
Leinad ¬
»saudações!
17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this sentence should be reworded:
He has argued that anyone who holds to the truth of both naturalism and evolution is irrational in doing so, an argument that finds much support within the intelligent design movement.
Referring to naturalism and evolution as "the truth" in reference to Platinga seems out of place, from what I can gather. Ejectgoose 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I've found it practically impossible to find out if Plantinga is human -- ie, if he's married, has children or single or what. I couldn't find a single source that would tell me, so I eventually gave up.
Some time after I did this, I bumped into the fact that he has a wife and a daughter. He mentioned his wife in one of his talks on www.veritas.org/media's programmes, and his daughter is mentioned here: http://www.truthbook.com/news/labels/Alvin%20Plantinga.html%7Cthis. Does anyone know -- and have a good source for -- anything else about his personal life? I think they may be worth at least a mention. Hairouna 18:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to verify any of this information, but I do have a few more facts that could be added under personal details. His daughter is a professor at Louisville Seminary (PCUSA) and has written a book or two on Jonathan Edwards. I believe she goes by the name Amy Plantinga-Pauw. His father, Cornelius Plantinga Sr., had some connection to Calvin college, but I'm not sure what. His brother, Cornelius Plantinga Jr., is the current president of Calvin Seminary and has written several books on theology (he also has a page on Wikipedia which could be linked to). I'm only throwing that out there in case anyone is interested in verifying/citing it. Stewart 8:51, 19 October 2007(UTC)
Plantinga doesn't claim that it is possible that every person goes wrong in every possible world. He claims that there is a possible world where God exists and every person goes wrong at least once. Think about the debate between Mackie and Plantinga and you will understand why. Plantinga admits to J.L. Mackie (his chief protagonist on this issue) that there ARE possible worlds where everyone always does what is right--morally perfect worlds. But Mackie's claim is that God and evil are logically incompatible--i.e. there is no possible world where both exist (just like there is no possible world where square circles exist). All Plantinga has to do to refute Mackie's claim that God and evil are logically incompatible is show that there is at least one possible world where they both exist. If there is such a possible world, then, contrary to Mackie, it is possible for God and evil to co-exist (again, if there is even one possible world with square circles, then square circles are logically possible). This difference is important. Now Mackie replies that if there are worlds where God exists and people always make the moral choices, why doesn't God create those worlds? Plantinga replies with transworld depravity: it is possible that the pattern of counterfactuals true at the actual world are such that God cannot actualize one of those perfect world. Anyway, the point is that the way the article stated transworld depravity was wrong in a subtle but important way. Plantinga only needs to show that there is ONE possible world where God and evil coexist to refute Mackie. He doesn't have to show that there are NO possible worlds where God exists and everyone makes the right moral choices all of the time. He doesn't have to make this stronger claim to refute Mackie and he doesn't. In fact, he concedes up front that such worlds exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.160.226 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone have a pronunciation for the name Plantinga in IPA? Cpk1971 ( talk) 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Plantinga has been tagged as an Intelligent design advocate. I know he is a member of ISCID and I think he's a critical stance towards methodological naturalism. I this enough to be an advocate of intelligent design? What is the definition of this term? I wonder because I have never seen him deny himself theistic evolution or embrace creationism (the idea that god created through several acts of special creation life on earth). When I think of an advocate of ID I have rather people like Behe in mind who deny explicitly evolution (the central claim of ID). I'd like to hear other opinions on this, additional sources are of course welcome.-- Student of philosophy ( talk) 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think advocate is slightly too strong. It is safe to say that he shares some of their underlying principles; in particular, he supports their fight against naturalism. He is explicitly referred to as an advocate here, but I wouldn't consider that a reliable source. His detailed positions are in that fabulous book, but the entire debate is available here. I believe McMullin quite nicely spells out the differences and similarity between Plantinga and ID advocates. As a footnotes, he writes:
The most obvious difference scarcely needs be stated. Plantinga is one of the most highly respected philosophers in the U.S., justly renowned for the quality of his scholarship and the care and rigor of his arguments. I bracket him here with the creation-science group, incongruous as such an association may seem, only because of the broad similarity of their theses in regard to special creation. I very much fear that this similarity may be sufficient to encourage creation-scientists to co-opt his essay to their own purposes.
Emphasis was added to highlight the fear that people may be trying to add that category this article in order to lend some credibility to the ID movement; if that is at all possible ... Vesal ( talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sceptical about this whole section. I don't think Plantinga supports ID and this smacks of "guilt by association". At the very least it should be renamed "Stance in respect of ID". NBeale ( talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
ROFL! "2:51 pm - Plantinga mentions Michael Behe, calls the argument serious. Dennett appears stunned, understandably. It's not clear whether Plantinga intended to be provocative by speaking up for this 'much maligned' intelligent design theorist. Plantinga says the ID argument is compelling but inconclusive as the complexity of the cell is more probable on theism than naturalism (but it isn't clear how much more)." Andrew Moon (February 23, 2009). "An Opinionated Play-by-Play of the Plantinga-Dennett Exchange - The Prosblogion". . dave souza, talk 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This edit summary states that it is "outrageous intellectual dishonesty" to make it appear Mackie was referring to Plantinga, but I thought Mackie was explicitly referring to Plantinga's theodicy. I don't have the book at hand, but this source seems to agree. Could someone explain? Vesal ( talk) 00:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I suggest editors should actually read Mackie's book before quoting it. Mackie is simply not discussing Plantinga at p. 154, and citing this passage as if it is, merely advertises ignorance or, as I said, outrageous dishonesty. His considered thoughts on Plantinga's defense appear 20 pages later, and I have added them to the article.
The underlying problem is that this passage is framed to tell a story -- that humble Plantinga overthrew the terrible atheist academics with his transworld slingshot, and that even the atheists have had to cravenly admit their errors and retreat to evidential arguments -- omitting the inconvenient fact that many philosophers are underwhelmed by Plantinga's argument, and foregrounding the narrative aspect when it rests entirely on one slender internet citation (from Jeff Lowder). 271828182 ( talk) 18:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've found an extensive quote of the relevant passage here, and can confirm that it does not makes no mention of Plantinga. I would further note that the 'concession' is merely the starting point of Mackie's argument, not the conclusion of it. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 06:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Plantinga is a design proponent:
Plantinga is a design proponent. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 19:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"With respect" commensurate to the evidence you have presented (i.e. absolutely none whatsoever), I'm "fairly sure" you have no idea what you're talking about.
I am getting completely sick of your unsubstantiated hand-waving. Either come up with some RSes that actually support your claims, or your further comments will be ignored and/or reverted/archived (per WP:TALK#Others' comments "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"). Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
NBeale:
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 16:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
What we put in the article must be supported by WP:RS. From "X said P supported D in 2000" and "Y said P lent moral support to D" in 2003 we cannot infer "P supports Y". This is simple logic. NBeale ( talk) 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't let your strong feelings in this matter interfere with your ability to think. "X said in 2001 that P supports ID" does not imply "P supports ID in 2009". Furthermore the other refs, using terms like "wedge ally" and "moral support" are clearly NOT stating that he is an out-and-out supporter of the IDM. P. is a world-class philosopher with a vast written output and if we attribute philosophical views to him it should be on the basis of his clear statements and not potentially outdated and contentious statements by third parties.
NBeale (
talk)
09:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Utopial: your clear attempts to give equal validity to ID "makes your contributions to these discussions virtually meaningless."
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 08:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
<unindent>
Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 11:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Rather than what some quite partisan people claim about Plantinga, let's talk about what he actually says, NBeale ( talk) 09:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is Plantinga himself that is making a number of 'bad arguments':
More WP:DUCK. More denialism from NBeale. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I think the article is pretty OK on this as it stands. There should not be a sub-section on ID because P. says v little about it explicitly. Gould's review may have been "devastating" but that does smack of POV and since this review was not of a book P. wrote it give undue weight to say Gould's review (described by X as "devastating" [ref]). NBeale ( talk) 16:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
To read the article text, one would think that Mackie had abjectly surrendered to Plantinga -- we get his "concession" quoted, but no mention of the "another question" that this concession was setting up, and we now have his "simply incoherent" quote moved into footnotes. This is not giving WP:DUE weight to the balance of Mackie's views on Plantinga's arguments -- it is outright cherry-picking. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 18:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Mackie may not be the only philosopher to disagree with Plantinga, but he is certainly the most notable. The question is whether any dissent (including Mackie's) is notable enough to be included in the article. The book citation I added ( Meister, Chad (2009). Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Routledge. p. 134. ISBN 0415403278. ) very explicitly states that most (Mackie being an exception) contemporary philosophers have accepted Plantinga's argument and that for most mainstream philosophers of religion, the "logical problem of evil" is pretty much settled. Gabbe ( talk) 08:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This section really needs to be rewritten. For example, it says:
Plantinga's argument has two basic stages. In this first stage he argues that the atheologian has failed to demonstrate that God and evil are logically incompatible. In the second stage he argues that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically consistent. He does so by constructing a model that includes both the existence of God and the existence of evil. Among other things, his model includes the possibility of "transworld depravity". His conception of transworld depravity amounts to the claim that there is a possible world in which an individual has morally significant freedom and does at least one morally wrong action.
We say the argument has two stages, but we offer neither of them. The section amounts to: "Philosophers say the existence of a good God and evil is a contradiction. Plantinga says it is not." Does anyone have the sources so it can be written up properly? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 21:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.
To Nbeale: the problem with writing this article is that it's a complex subject and people need a background in philosophy to get the vocabulary right. I have studied philosophy but not this area, and I have none of the books in front of me, so editing it properly is impossible. However, I did remove some of the most obvious problems from that paragraph in terms of the way it had been written. Your edits are serving to re-introduce them. For example, it is not any old god that was deemed contradictory, but a very specific type (omnipotent etc).
As for Mackie, his argument is key, and should not be removed to a footnote. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The article currently reads: "Most contemporary philosophers accept Plantinga's argument," with the reference (to Meister's book): "It is now widely accepted that the logical problem of evil has been sufficiently rebutted." The cited reference does not support the article text: it one thing to regard the logical problem as rebutted, it is another to accept Plantinga's argument. Can we get a better cite, or a rewrite of the sentence? 271828182 ( talk) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Robert Adams says that "it is fair to say that Plantinga has solved this problem. That is, he has argued convincingly for the consistency of [God and evil]." William Alston has said that "Plantinga [...] has established the possibility that God could not actualize a world containing free creatures that always do the right thing." William L. Rowe has written "granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God", refering to Plantinga's argument.
Nbeale, you changed that we know a god exists in the same way that we know other minds do, to a "similar" way. [7]
If not in the same way, what is the difference, according to Plantinga? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:OBVIOUS, there is nothing wrong with stating first Plantinga's involvement in Christian apologetics (it is arguably his main focus) and then stating what form these apologetics take. I would note that Christian apologetics#Varieties notes a wide range of forms. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 05:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
He is known for his work in epistemology, metaphysics, the philosophy of religion and for applying the methods of analytic philosophy to defend orthodox Christian beliefs.
I recently reverted a rewording regarding the acceptance of Plantinga's free will defense. I know that there are people who feel that because someone is Christian that by itself means that they can't make an unbiased statement on any topic connected with the philosophy of religion, but that argument is not in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Under WP:RS, a source is not deemed unreliable simply because their authors are of a certain persuasion or opinion. Furthermore, if there are reliable, contemporary, secondary sources indicating that Plantinga's argument has not been met with wide acceptance, I'd gladly welcome them in the article. Does anybody have such sources? Gabbe ( talk) 07:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The anon does not seem to be giving up easily. Perhaps my compromise version can be stable enough until we figure out a solution here. It is not really a compromise because the version I left it at is not acceptable to myself even, but I refuse to edit war with an anon. We either need to get the page semi-protected, or leave it like this until we have a better solution. I don't know what to do when an anon just reverts and doesn't even comment on talk. I think a gave a fairly detailed response which has not been addressed by this anonymous editor. This is not fair at all. Vesal ( talk) 18:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've protected the page for three days to hash out the latest external link addition. Please stop reverting back and forth and have a discussion here first. If a conclusion is determined before the protection expires, please let me know and I'll remove it. Kuru (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Those who claim that "Plantinga is against science" should check their own paradigms. Seems that people here have fallen into the trap of setting "science vs religion", something that dates back to the Age of Reason when science was seen as an alternative to religion. The main paradigm in science today stems from a naturalistic viewpoint ; that is that there must be a "natural" explanation to everything. However, the problem is that naturalism cannot itself prove that there is nothing supernatural, thus adhering to naturalism means adhering to a belief. Prof. Puolimatka argues that the different philosophical viewpoints in science should be allowed to compete freely with each other (naturalism / supernaturalism) and their goodness evaluated in how well they explain the phenomena they study. Furthermore, Puolimatka points out that there has so far been no well-defined and crisp line between what is science and what is not. Thus, science that adheres to scientific methods but also does not exclude a supernaturalistic philosophical viewpoint (like Plantinga) cannot be excluded from science without falling into the loop of the inherited problems mentioned above.
(Text above based on the books by Finnish professor Tapio Puolimatka: "Usko, tiede ja Raamattu." Helsinki: Uusi tie, 2007. ISBN 978-951-619-467-0 and "Usko, tieto ja myytit." Tammi, 2005. ISBN 951-26-5347-8).
Tikru8 9:05, 9 November 2011 (EET)
"Those who claim that "Plantinga is against science" should check their own paradigms."
laughable. go ahead. do science non naturalistically. why do idiots like you even THINK you know what you are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8200:1767:DA00:8DFA:EF0B:73A3:BE77 ( talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
While science, by its nature as a methodology, must be accomplished naturalistically; that does not necessarily mean a scientist who also holds to a particular religious worldview is "against science." Whatever your opinion regarding the validity of religious worldviews, I find the above unsigned comment deriding the OP's statement as "laughable" and calling him an "idiot" as unhelpful, to say the least. I fail to see how insults serve to improve Wikipedia in any way. At the same time, as the OP's claim does not appear to be in the article, I probably shouldn't be feeding the attention given to this topic. The Famous Adventurer ( talk) 04:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is a nice video by QualiaSoup which readily debunks some of his claims on substance dualism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZTCK8ZluEc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying philosophy of religion is the same thing as theology? Category:Philosophers of religion is its own cat. If you have sources saying he's a theologian, please add it to the article. Categorization should be verifiable based on the article text. -- JFHutson ( talk) 15:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Please compare the existing fragment: Although the argument has been criticized by some philosophers, like Elliott Sober, it has received favorable notice from Thomas Nagel with an alternative such as, for example: Although the argument has received favorable notice from, e.g., Thomas Nagel, it has been criticized by some other philosophers, such as Elliott Sober. Same information, different implications planted. So how about removing the bias from this statement? Thanks, Bansp ( talk) 13:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alvin Plantinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alvin Plantinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Why is the section about Platinga being on local television a noteworthy event for this page? The fact that someone appeared on a local television show about a mundane news story doesnt seem like it warrants inclusion on an encyclopedia article.
This section was originally made by an IP editor, I removed it and explained why, and another IP editor reverted it without explanation. Im reverting back to the original removal and if anyone would like to say anything in defense of that section they can talk about it here. Rosencrantz24 ( talk) 08:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Plantinga never looks as cool as in that photo in other situations. The article photo should be one in which he does not look that cool, in order to be more realistic. 191.254.134.147 ( talk) 23:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)