Are Norm Geisler and Frank Turek Dishonest?

Those of you have been following my writing for years know that I am very cautious about questioning another person's integrity. (If you're not familiar with, do a search on Jeff Lowder, William Lane Craig, and dishonesty or lying.) But this time I have stumbled across something so egregious I am having a very hard time coming up with a charitable explanation. In their book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Frank Turek write the following … [Read more...]

Stupid Apologetics Tricks

Here are some stupid apologetics tricks I've come across lately in things I've been reading. Feel free to add your own in the combox. If I like it enough, I may just add yours to the list! Stupid Apologetics Trick #1: (1) Really crappy debaters used stupid arguments and objections against H. (2) Therefore, H is true. Stupid Apologetics Trick #2: (1) H is true. (2) Therefore, H is true. Stupid Apologetics Trick #3: Step 1. Literally ignore all of the evidence for X . Step 2. … [Read more...]

Index: Larry Arnhart on the Case For (and Against) Life After Death

Part 1: Introduction Part 2: Near Death Experiences Part 3: Kantian Dualism Part 4: Neuroscience, Consciousness, and Free Will Part 5: Does Morality Require the Cosmic Justice of Heaven and Hell? … [Read more...]

WLC’s Debate Quotation of Anthony Kenny

Here is WLC's quotation of Kenny: A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing. And here is a critique: LINK … [Read more...]

Torley’s Response to Cavin & Colombetti on the Resurrection of Jesus

This was apparently published last December, but I wasn't aware of it until today. Vincent Torley provides an interesting Intelligent Design perspective on C&C's slide presentation on the resurrection of Jesus. LINK … [Read more...]

Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism, Part 3

I'm now going to comment on Stan's post, "What I Learned at Patheos." Stan's Integrity-Challenged Description of His Interactions at the Secular Outpost My foray into patheos–land is over. I don’t usually venture into other blogs because they are commonly infested with nasty hangers-on (PZ anyone?), but this one seemed different… at first. And it is different, but really only in the politeness of their same old refusal to actually engage in any analysis of atheism. After I posted a … [Read more...]

Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism, Part 2

In my last post about Stan Stephens, I documented how he fundamentally misrepresents the purpose and nature of my evidential case for naturalism, in turn because he seems to fundamentally misunderstand inductive arguments. Let's continue reviewing Stan's post on empirical evidence. Now we can more readily see that not a single line item is a defeater for the question being asked, which again is this: “where is the material, empirical, falsifiable but not falsified, replicable and … [Read more...]

Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism

Stan Stephens has finally decided to respond to my list of sixteen (16) lines of empirical evidence which favor naturalism over theism. Here is the first sentence of his reply. Jeffery Jay Lowder provided a list of empirical proofs. (emphasis added) I've emphasized Stan's use of the word "proofs" because it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of the arguments. The word "proof" has the connotation of certainty. But I've never claimed that my list of arguments are "proofs." Rather, my list of … [Read more...]