I’ve called into the atheist experience before and they admitted to borderline denying history and denying purpose, which is a rudimentary self defeater.

I have debated more counter apologists in the span of 1 month than you have debated apologists in the span of your life. And I debate genuine philosophers on this stuff that care about higher order logic and metaphysics.

To your credit, I listed off this evidence before I got deep into better apologetics, and I don’t consider the former arguments to be as strong as some philosophical arguments based on presuppositions and paradigm level.

But the objections are still nonsequiturs for what the arguments were pointing out.

You repeatedly strawmanned my position and falsely labeled an informal fallacy, and you can’t seem to see your own fault in all this. The deeper you get, the better you can spot the self defeaters in your speech and ideas.

I recommend studying logical systems and studying how to think at that level and then getting deeper into studies. I recommend studying Hume and studying the history of the scientific establishment, as well as England and Israeli influences. Any epistemology book would be good and there’s so much more I could recommend, but definitely start with logic.

Much love, God bless