When I started listening to this, I said to myself, "I hope the Cambridge fellow brings up actual counterarguments, and doesn't simply question, without actually refuting but only questioning, the foundations of rational thought that would never be attacked in any other context whatsoever but is acceptable when talking God."

Left disappointed, again. The usual questionings, without refuting, our observations of change, the PSR, and some questions about definitions. As someone who started out on the complete opposite side, I'm at a point, and this is a complete 180 from my thinking some years ago, where I'm starting to believe there are no rational arguments against the existence of God except Aquinas' statement of "The Problem of Evil" which is easily answered. It's beginning to seem to me that if rationality is reliable, God inevitably follows once you follow the chain.

And so the real debates, it seems to me, should focus on whether the intellectual faculty is reliable since this is, ironically, the only point that's truly ever at issue, whereas God is secondary. Put another way, one side says if we know anything we know God, and the other side, instead of actually arguing back, settles for saying we don't know anything.