Plantinga is considered the most relevant and authoritative theist of our time. But I tell you that such emphasis is misplaced; such confidence is unfounded!
Above all else Plantinga should be known for one thing: sophisticated language (and an over-zealous use of the symbol). It is entirely true that what he says could be said without all the symbolic-fanfare, but if he did this it would detract from the persuasion-edifice of his prose (the reader would no longer be overwhelmed into submission; the capitulation-effect would be nullified). In essence; to speak more plainly would be disserviceable to his theism.*
*[I am not positing that Plantinga’s procedure is unintelligible; nor am I stating that he is unskilled in analytical computation (this is most certainly not the case!), but what I am stating is that his method tends [to preserve from criticism] the more vital elements of his thesis thereby producing the appearance of justification. I believe a good example of this can be seen in his handling of the Cosmological Argument in “God and Other Minds.” How hard is it to demonstrate that Aquinas’ argument is better suited to the existence of Nature than the existence of God? Analytical Philosophy can become a means of evading criticism, and this is nowhere exemplified better than in the work of Plantinga.]
**[In a panel discussion at Georgetown University, Jan 7, 2013, Standing Seminar: Theism, Naturalism, and Rationality, Mark Murphy and Michael Tooley, along with several others, asked Plantinga to clarify what he meant by God. Murphy: “what should we take to be the case [attributes of God] if theism is true; what must a person deny in order to be considered an atheist?” Plantinga: “I was thinking of theism as a view that there is an all-powerful (maybe you would say omnipotent, maybe not?) all-knowing, perfectly good, perfectly loving person, who has created the world and created human beings in his image. That’s how I was thinking of it.” In immediate succession, Tooley to Plantinga: “At one point you used the expression, something like God, how close would it have to be to qualify... would Zeus be something like God?” Plantinga: “Yes I think so, right, if you believe in Zeus you wouldn’t be a Naturalist... I admit that the term Naturalism as I understand it is vague, but I’m hoping for present purposes that vagueness won’t matter?”----- what we say to Plantinga: good luck proving that belief in an all-powerful, omnipotent, all-knowing, perfectly good, perfectly loving person, who has created the world and created human beings in his image, is rational. Good luck proving, that when it comes to God, specificity doesn’t matter.]
[In a very real sense Plantinga’s scheme is very close to that of the sophists. For in postulating, that belief in any generic God is rational, he has affirmed that contraries are rational--- but has he really escaped the Fourth Book of Aristotle’s Metaphysics? For what does he mean by God: “if you think about the theistic religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam it would be the conception of God one finds in those religions.” Ibid. This is merely ignorance disguised as rationality. A man who teaches that Allah and YAHWEH are equally the outcome of his thesis (contrary yet true) is largely confused. He has need to go back and learn the first principles of logic.]