Ichneumon:"... I ... don't think he's worthy of even much passing attention, much less "running from", so it appears that your assessment is mistaken, as usual."
Ichneumon:"As for being like those from whom we descended, you remind me of a relevant quote:" "For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper; or from that old baboon, who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs -- as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions." -- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd ed., London: John Murray, 1901, p. 946.
Proving nothing other than the fact that arrogant, self-righteous, moral relativists pretend that there is no way the Creator / Sustainer God could possibly exist since the evidence shows that he doesn't come up to their standards of goodness. [Romans 1:25]
Ichneumon: "Apes in general are more inspiring relatives than many so-called humans. So I wouldn't get too smug if I were you."
"Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the FEAR of God ...."
You can run - but you can't hide.
Do you really think this kind of stuff is an effective witness for Christ?
Did you think that repeating your childish outburst would somehow improve its appeal or ability to "persuade"?
"Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that his conviction, namely, that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow. . . . From this we conclude that it is not a doctrine that must first be learned in school, but one of which each of us is master from his mother's womb and which nature itself permits no man to forget."
Ponder this classic observation:
"Primates often have trouble imagining a universe not run by an angry alpha male" -- AnonThat alone could be the "explanation" for the instinct to seek someone to obey/follow "which nature itself permits no man to forget" as you put it. It certainly fits in a great number of ways.
It also explains why my dog worships me, and my cat doesn't. Creatures which have evolved a social structure revolving around an alpha-male (like dogs, as well as humans and other primates) will be "hardwired" to expect and want a "ruler" to whom they give their allegiance and turn to for protection and permission.
Similarly, Arthur C. Clarke has suggested that man looks for a god because of the instincts which help us survive as a species having a long childhood. To keep kids from wandering off on their own too soon and getting eaten by the tigers beyond the safety of the tribe (and so on), humans, primates, and other animals with a long nurturing time have instincts which instill in the young feelings involving turning to your parents for protection and sustenance, looking up to them for guidance on how to live, fear of straying too far from them and being alone, respect for their position of power over you, etc. etc. etc. After growing up and/or leaving home, however, these instincts leave a yearning to continue to look up to some more powerful, protective nurturer/rule-giver. And a belief in a watching-over-me deity would fulfill this need for some people. Is it mere coincidence that so many gods are described in terms which are variations of "heavenly father", "our father who art in heaven", "god the father", etc.?
Further support for this potential explanation is seen in the results of studies such as: Vitz, P.C. (1999), "Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism". Vitz found that atheists tend more often than theists to have grown up with absent fathers (through death, divorce, etc.) or poor relationships with their fathers. If theism is an outgrowth of the childhood desire to have a parent to look up to and feel protected/guided by, then Vitz's findings make sense.
So Plantinga's simplistic argument -- which boils down to, "if we have a yearning for something greater than ourselves, then something greater than ourselves must necessarily exist", really doesn't hold water. There are many reasons why humans would have such a yearning entirely apart from Platinga's one possible explanation. His (and your) "that *must* be it!" mindset is not just simplistic, it's logically incorrect.
Proving nothing other than the fact that arrogant, self-righteous, moral relativists pretend that there is no way the Creator / Sustainer God could possibly exist since the evidence shows that he doesn't come up to their standards of goodness.
Wow, you draw some... strange conclusions. No, that's neither what I said, nor what Darwin was saying. That quote I posted had to do with biological relatives, not deities. How you read into that any sort of "pretending there is no way god could possibly exist" is a mystery. Hallucinate much?
But you sound pretty "arrogant and self-righteous" yourself. How about toning it down a few notches, lest you give Christians a bad name? There are many good presentations of the values of Christianity, but yours is not among them.
And please explain how you managed to jump to the conclusion that I am both a "moral relativist" and one of the "impious". The fact that I point out the flaws in various arguments, including flawed arguments against science and flawed arguments for religion, does not constitute sufficient evidence for such leaps.
"Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the FEAR of God ...."
Uh huh... It's Platinga who is engaging in "perversity" of twisted thinking here. His "point" in the above passage is just as goofy and misses the point as the following equivalent:
"Indeed, the perversity of those who do not believe in Santa Claus, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the FEAR of Santa.... [i.e., the FEAR of ending up on his 'naughty' list...]"Now, see how stupid and obviously fallacious that sounds when used to make the identical so-called argument in a parallel case?
Hint: The "impious" do not believe that there is any such thing called "God" -- they think it is just as insubstantial as Santa Claus. Therefore, Platinga (and yourself) are just being incredibly dense when you try to impute any "FEAR" of non-existent entities to them. Do you reject a belief in Santa Claus because you are "AFRAID" that he actually exists and can't face being judged "naughty" by him? Of course you don't -- that's just stupid, and so is Platinga's version.
You can run - but you can't hide.
And, YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM SANTA, mwuahahaha!!!
Come back when you find a real argument. And note that I didn't "run" from this one. So yet *again* we find that your assertions are wrong.