Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism
Plantiga's argument can be found here: https://www.bethinking.org/atheism/an-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism Now for the argument that it is irrational to believe N&E: P(R/N&E) is either low or inscrutable; in either case (if you accept N&E) you have a defeater for R, and therefore for any other belief B you might hold; but B might be N&E itself; so one who accepts N&E has a defeater for N&E, a reason to doubt or be agnostic with respect to it. If he has no independent evidence, N&E is self-defeating and hence irrational. It can be summed up (from here ): (1) P(R/N&E) is low. (2) Anyone who accepts (believes) N&E and sees that P(R/N&E) is low has a defeater for R. (3) Anyone who has a defeater for R has a defeater for any other belief she thinks she has, including N&E itself. (4) If one who accepts N&E thereby acquires a defeater for N&E, N&E is selfdefeating and cannot rationally be accepted. To explain "P(R/N&