As haiku such, even if one believes in a divine sense, which is irrational, perception of a god can in no way be considered universally superior to non-basic beliefs, for the same reason. Otherwise, we would rightly say that he is being irrational. But if he was faced with a much stronger case for (1), of the type I just described, he would no doubt change his mind and haiku conclude that his memory is incomplete or distorted. Like any reasonable person, Plantinga really compared the probabilities of (1) and (2) and concluded that his recollection was more reliable than circumstantial evidence.
For example, a surveillance video of Plantinga stealing the letter would be direct evidence, and thus would make (1) more credible. It is set up to make the haiku case in (1) much weaker than it could actually be, since circumstantial evidence is not as credible as direct evidence. Even if we accept the analogy between (2) and a hypothetical divine sense, the analogy itself does not prove that basic beliefs are undefeatable by non-basic beliefs. However, there is haiku a major problem with this analysis.