Chad Gross’s Review of my Debate with Frank Turek

Chad Gross at Truthbomb Apologetics has written a fair, open-minded review of my debate with Frank Turek: "Lowder's debate style is very similar to that of William Lane Craig. He begins with the contentions he intends to defend and then supports them with his arguments. This should be modeled by all those who desire to debate successfully.... It was obvious, especially in the case of Lowder, that the debaters were familiar with their opponent’s position and written work.... Lowder majored on con … [Read more...]

Unapologetic Review – Part 10: Evaluation of Reason #9

REVIEW OF ANALYSIS OF REASON #9In Part 9 of this series, I asserted that  the main argument in  Unapologetic is Reason #9, and I argued that Reason #9 invoved the following assumptions: 5. ANY claim that is based on faith cannot be reasonably defended. 6. Philosophers ought NOT recognize and participate in an alleged sub-discipline of philosophy that uses reason to examine ONLY claims that are based on faith. Premise (5) is a reason in support of premise (6), and premise (6) is a reason in … [Read more...]

Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 13: Existence and Attributes of a Necessary Being

In Phase 1 of his case for the existence of God, Geisler reformulates the argument from being as follows:Argument from Being #2 - Initial Version 50. If God exists, [then] we conceive of Him [God] as a necessary Being.   51. By definition, a necessary Being must exist and cannot not exist.   THEREFORE 52. ...if God exists, then He [God] must exist and cannot not exist. (WSA, p.25) PHASE 3 ARGUMENTBoth premise (50) and the conclusion (52) are conditional statements with t … [Read more...]

Randal Rauser’s Most Excellent Review of the Lowder-Turek Debate

I think this just might be the best review ever written of a debate between an atheist and a theist. It's comprehensive, thoughtful, irenic, fair, and well-written. I agree with almost the entire review, with the exception of Randal's point about the definition of naturalism. I don't consider that to be a flaw of the review in any way, however. Rather, I consider that to be a reasonable disagreement.Check it out!LINK … [Read more...]

Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 12: Is the Creator a Necessary Being?

PHASE 3: THE EXISTENCE OF A NECESSARY BEINGGeisler abuses the word “God” yet again in Phase 3 of his case for the existence of God.  The argument in Phase 3 is on page 27.  It makes use of the conclusion from “The Argument from Being” in Phase 1 (pages 24-26). Here is the conclusion of this part of his case:God is a necessary being.He is NOT using the word “God” in its ordinary sense here.  Perhaps, he actually means something like this:Whatever caused the universe is a necessar … [Read more...]

Video of Lowder’s Debate with Frank Turek on Naturalism vs. Theism

Topic: "What Better Explains Reality? Naturalism or Theism"Link: to Specific Elements of Debate:Moderator's Introduction: Lowder's Opening Statement (20 minutes): Turek's Opening Statement (20 minutes): Lowder's First Rebuttal (10 minutes): Turek's Firs … [Read more...]

Unapologetic Review – Part 9: Analysis of Reason #9

A KEY PASSAGE FROM PART 2 OF THIS SERIES:It appears to me that just as Chapter 5 is the heart of the book, and that the 10 Reasons are the heart of Chapter 5, so also I believe that Reason #9 (which concerns opposition to "faith-based claims") for ending philosophy of religion is at the heart of the 10 Reasons.If I can shove a sharp dagger into Reason #9, then I believe that will kill the beast, and stop the beating of the heart of Loftus' case against the philosophy of religion.Here … [Read more...]

A Very Unscientific Survey of Some Popular Responses to the Problem of Evil

I recently defended Paul Draper's evidential argument from evil (specifically, facts about pain and pleasure) against William Lane Craig's popular objections. (LINK) I decided to browse his website discussion forum devoted to the problem of evil. I was struck by some of the responses used by the people posting there (who should not be confused with Craig himself). Putting aside the posts which tear down strawman versions of the argument from evil, versions not defended by any atheist philosopher … [Read more...]