Why Is the Modal-Epistemic Argument for the Existence of God Flawed?

Emanuel Rutten proposes a novel argument, which is called a modal-epistemic argument, for the existence of God. This argument has two premises: 1. all possible truths are knowable; and 2. it is not knowable that God does not exit. Stefan Wintein evaluates the argument by Rutten and refutes both of his premises. This article is a response to both Rutten and Wintein. It argues that the objections by Wintein are not convincing. It argues further that Rutten fails in providing a justification for the second premise of his argument. Moreover, this article shows that the modal-epistemic argument is not immune to the parity objection and therefore faces the same problem that traditional modal arguments do.