Answer

Yes.
There is no need to thank me (I understand from you that there really is nothing to thank me for, unfortunately). As I said, it is preferable to try to speak with these young people as early a stage as possible, despite the common concern that at such an early stage there is hope that the difficulties will not arise, and then the fear is that these very conversations might awaken further doubts that otherwise would not have arisen.
This young man of ours is very intelligent, sharp, and very impressive (as is the case with many of those I meet, who do not find answers in their own surroundings and so come to me). But truly my feeling is that he was already fairly dug in. His arguments are not absurd, of course, but someone who is still at the stage of being willing to listen, in my assessment, would not see them as good arguments. The nature of such debates is that there are no proofs here at the level of absolute certainty. This is not pure logic (for there is always the question of the basic assumptions behind the logical argument). There are rebuttals to every argument and claim, and one’s attitude toward such a rebuttal depends on the degree of basic empathy. Someone who still believes, but is beginning to have questions, will not treat a possible rebuttal as a decisive claim, but will draw a conclusion based on what seems reasonable to him. But someone who has passed that stage and already reached the conclusion that he does not believe sees those rebuttals as crushing arguments, and so it is very difficult to move him from his position. Again, I am not speaking about lying or deliberate disregard of good arguments, but about an initial intuitive attitude toward basic assumptions, which is influenced by the positions we already hold when we come into the discussion. That is human nature.
For example, when I asked him how the special laws of the world came into being and who created them—for it is not reasonable that something so special came into being on its own without a guiding hand (and even if they always existed, there is still the question of sufficient reason)—he answered that we have no experience with the laws of nature themselves, since all of our experience is with laws within nature. Note that this is a rebuttal (that is, a statement that my words are not necessary, because it is also possible to think otherwise). And indeed, there is room for such a rebuttal. But now the question is what we do when we have two options: to apply our experience to the laws of nature, or not to apply it. After all, it is clear that usually we all make generalizations from what is known to what is unknown. We never have experience with everything, because if we did, then everything we know would be the result of direct observation. That is not the case in science, nor in any other field. A basic assumption is that the laws of nature on the moon and throughout the universe are like those here. How do we know that? Because we generalize from what is familiar to us. So why, in this case, is he unwilling to understand that this is merely a rebuttal? Because one’s attitude toward such a rebuttal depends on one’s starting point: if you already do not believe, you will cling to that rebuttal and say that the argument from the laws is not decisive, and is even highly speculative. And indeed, it is not decisive and not certain. But in my opinion, someone who comes to the matter as a blank slate understands that there is an argument here with significant weight (though of course not absolute and not certain. There is nothing absolute in anything, and certainly not in these matters). I assume that he himself, a year or two ago, would have accepted this argument, but now he no longer does.
 
I am elaborating for my own sake, in order to make people aware of the importance of grasping the difficulties in time and not waiting until the lamp is already out, when it is hard to repair things. I thought quite a bit after our conversation, as often happens to me after many conversations, because this subject occupies me greatly and stirs many thoughts in me about how it is right to deal with such young people, who once hardly existed (we have now established an institute to deal with the difficulties of intelligent dropouts).
All the best,