I need help with refutations for this

[theVOID]

1. I think belief in God is properly basic.
2. The likelihood of my cognitive structure structure retaining true beliefs is greater than on theism, than given atheism).

Tell him to put down the Plantinga! - "Properly basic belief" is the same as saying "I can present no epistemic justification for my beliefs so I will instead argue that what I already believe, and every other foundational belief, is necessarily basic and cannot be supported by argument and/or evidence"

That's false, an Epistemology is a "basic" belief that offers all of the supposed "foundations" of a belief in "theism" or "Naturalism" or any other world view AND is completely open to refutation - We can have a basic belief that an epistemology is true and compile a worldview from that point onwards by examining other propositions with these epistemic standards while at the same time having a "basic" belief that is entirely open to refutation. No Christian can present a sound and valid epistemology that permits belief in a God, that is precisely why they resort to this "properly basic" bullshit.

As for 2.... Even if that is true, which I guess it is, the contrary is also an argument for Naturalism, that the inherent flaws, cognitive biases, memory loss and confusion, false beliefs etc are more likely Given naturalism. If you want to say that the universe is more likely given theism you must account for every aspect of the universe and not just stop at the first one that may be more likely given theism.

And for Christian theism in particularly:
3. Argument that God is not a unitarian God.
4. The Resurrection as the best explanation of certain facts about the historical Jesus.
5. Religious experience.

That simply does not qualify as an argument, also, 4 presupposes that Jesus is in fact a historical figure, I am undecided about that personally, I tend to believe he was, but that aside one simply cannot assert his historical existence in the premises.

Also, saying that "The biblical narrative is best explained by the resurrection" is just like saying "The yellow brick road is best explained by the city of Oz".

Religious experience is the single worst argument anybody can use, these "revelations" have lead to so many completely contradictory conclusions that you simply cannot accept them as an argument for anything.

Also Hello! this is my first post

Welcome