I am writing this because I am, to be up front about the matter, sick and tired of other atheists making bad counter-arguments to these theistic arguments that don't actually address them. WLC is good at taking his opponents to task on this, and anyone is welcome to copy and re-use my counter-arguments.
EAAN countered, 3 separate counter-arguments:
Let me present 3 counters to the EAAN here.
1. The Argument from Romantic Love and Marriage:
P1. Over 90% of newly engaged couples believe almost nothing apart from death can separate them.
P2. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce.
C. At least 40% of those couples' belief about this major life event was false
Discussion: Such a widespread false belief can be explained much better on naturalistic evolution than theism: This cognitively biased belief, in obvious ways, promotes reproduction.
2. The Argument from Honesty:
P1. In general, telling the truth is easier than lying, in the sense that liars have to put a lot of effort into making sure what they say appears consistent enough so as to not be transparent.
P2. This effort reflects the fact that, without the effort, chances are, it will be obvious.
C: P(S/H) is large, but P(S/DH) is small, where S = claims "slip by" without being detected as suspect, H = Honesty (claims are true), DH = Dis-Honesty (Claims are false).
Discussion: The analogy between P(S/H) and P(A/R) should be obvious, where A = adaptive beliefs and R = rational beliefs. Thus, we have a good prima facie reason to believe that P(A/R) is high but that P(A/IR) is low (IR = irrational beliefs)
3. The Argument from Taxicab Drivers
P1. A rational person would not knowingly and given other options ride a taxicab driven by a hallucinating and delirious asylum patient who hasn't taken their daily medicine today
C. P(NT&RP&TL/MID) is low, while P(NT&RP&TL/MHED) is high, where NT = Negotiates Turns well, RP = takes passenger(s) to the Right Place, TL = obeys Traffic Laws (apart from trivial matters like going 2 mph over the limit when warranted by traffic conditions), MID = Mentally ill Driver, MHED = Mentally Healthy, Experienced Driver
This DESPITE the fact that, as Plantinga would say, "I can conceive of" a situation in which the crazy driver thought that pedestrians should be run over but hits the brake instead of the gas, and that the mall is someone's house but mis-reads the road signs.
The analogy here should be obvious.
Craig's Moral Argument Demolished:
Suppose we have a logical argument with premises 1 and 2 and a conclusion:
P1
P2
therefore C
Also suppose that P2 is supported by an argument from P2a and P2b:
P2a
P2b
therefore P2
Now the original argument may be expanded as
P1
P2a
P2b
therefore C
Now, suppose I can find a set of 2 premises P3 and P4 such that P1, P3 and P4 logically entail ~(P2a), or equivalently, P2a, P3, and P4 entail ~P1. It thus follows that, given P3 and P4, it is not the case that both P1 and P2a are true, and thus P3 and P4, if true, serve to undermine the argument by depriving it of its probative force.
Here, we have
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
P2a: If it "feels like" objective moral values exist, objective moral values exist
P2b: It "feels like" objective moral values exist
P2: Objective moral values exist
P3: Humans are a social species
P4: If God does not exist, the members of a social species would have still evolved to "feel like" objective moral values exist.
C: God exists
If it isn't obvious how P1, P2a, P3, and P4 cannot all be true:
From P3 and P4, if God does not exist, humans would "feel like" objective moral values exist
Combining with P2a, if God does not exist, objective moral values exist (in direct contradiction to P1)
Now, the problem with the moral argument is clear. Regardless of the truth of P2b, the fact that empirical science gives us grounds for believing P3 and P4 is sufficient to demolish the argument.
