I need help with refutations for this

[theVOID]

Hi there, MrJatt. If you are looking for more information about 1 and 2, you will want to read up on Alvin Plantinga, who argues for these main points (and others) in a multi-volume work on epistemology.

Which has been so thoroughly refuted that the mere fact you suggest it shows how far from contemporary epistemology you are.

The first is an argument that theism can be rational without knowledge of a good argument for theism

Which is utter nonsense, a rational belief is one that is epistemically justified, plantinga's epistemology is subject to so many refutations that it's barely clear where to start - the Great Pumpkin Objection is my favorite though, his epistemology makes such a belief "properly basic".

the second is normally called the "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism" (EAAN) which argues that the conjunction of evolution and naturalism is self-defeating.

And which demonstrates his lack of concern for proper form in a Bayesian argument, amongst other things, this is even more thoroughly refuted that his epistemology.

If your friend is a philosopher, you will want to make sure that you understand the strongest form of his arguments before you attempt a refutation.

Agreed.

All I'm doing is providing information about the arguments and views, not advocating them. That said, it doesn't follow that if theism is properly basic, then a whole theistic belief system is properly basic. And some of those belief systems you list are not even theistic!

Good call on that one, though I would contend that a theistic belief cannot be properly basic, especially when you had to first have at your disposal an epistemology (albeit a flawed one) in order to determine that these beliefs are properly basic to begin with - It's like saying "Given you accept warrant and proper functionalism you can conclude that belief in god is properly basic" which in it's self demonstrates that the basic belief must necessarily be the epistemology and not one such conclusion thereof.

And unlike his ideal "properly basic" belief that needs no rational justification and is immune to scrutiny, the epistemology that is required to conclude that such "properly basic" beliefs exist is wide open to refutation and does require rational justification.