For Victor Reppert: The Metaethical Objections to Craig’s Moral Argument Which His Sophisticated Critics Use, But Craig Never Acknowledges in Debate Opening Statements

(Redated post originally published on 21 June 2012)This is a quick follow-up to my last reply to Victor Reppert. The title of Reppert's post is, "The Moral Argument that Christians don't use, but atheists always rebut." In reply, we can point to "The Metaethical Objections to Craig's Moral Argument Which His Sophisticated Critics Use, But Craig Never Acknowledges in Debate Opening Statements."LINK … [Read more...]

The Empty Tomb: Reply to Josh and Sean McDowell

(Redated post originally published on 20 November 2012)A friend informed me that Josh and Sean McDowell, in the new (revised?) edition of More Than a Carpenter (MTAC) on page 134, have offered a critique of the relocation hypothesis, which I defended in The Empty Tomb (TET). I have reviewed what they wrote. Here is a rough sketch of how I would respond.First, I could not help but notice similarities between the wording of their comments and the wording of Stephen Davis's review in … [Read more...]

Botched Response to The Empty Tomb

(Redated post on 24 October 2011)(This article was written in 2005 or 2006, but sat in my Drafts folder while I was inactive.)Robert M. Price and I are the co-authors of a skeptical anthology on the alleged historicity of the resurrection of Jesus entitled The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. Steve Hays recently wrote a book-length rebuttal to our book entitled, This Joyful Eastertide. When I first heard about this rebuttal, I have to confess I skipped directly to Hays' rebuttal … [Read more...]

Review of Craig-Law Debate on God’s Existence

(Redated post originally published on 24 October 2011)SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT OF "DOES GOD EXIST?" (2011) WITH WILLIAM LANE CRAIG AND STEPHEN LAW 17 October 2011 Westminster Central Hall Storeys Gate, London SW1H 9NHby Jeffery Jay LowderCONTENTSAbout This Summary and Assessment Debate Summary Debate Assessment Other Reviews of the DebateABOUT THIS SUMMARY AND ASSESSMENT As always, while I've tried to be accurate, I don't claim this is perfect. If you find errors, … [Read more...]

Reply to Wintery Knight’s Review of the Craig-Law Debate

(Redated post originally published on 26 October 2011)I recently submitted the following feedback to WinteryKnight's review of the Craig-Law debate. Wintery Knight -- You must have listened to a different debate than the one I did. For example, in summarizing Stephen Law's first rebuttal, you write:"Craig thinks that you need an objective standard in order to judge things as objectively good or evil. But that’s false. I can use my subjective opinions to claim that some things are o … [Read more...]

Do Proponents of the Argument from Evil Try to Have it Both Ways? A Reply to David Wood

(Redated post originally published on 26 October 2011)According to David Wood (see here), atheists who appeal to the argument from evil are logically inconsistent. Why? Wood offers the following explanation: For instance, atheists seem to be arguing (1) that human beings are so good that God shouldn’t allow us to suffer, and (2) that human beings are so bad that God shouldn’t have created us (or given us free will, etc.). That is, atheists are simply shocked that a good God would allow hum … [Read more...]

Apologist Josh McDowell: Internet the Greatest Threat to Christians

(Redated post originally published on 19 November 2011)This is old news, but cries out for a comment. According to The Christian Post, Josh McDowell has declared the Internet to be the greatest threat to Christians. As the editor of an Internet anthology rebutting McDowell's book Evidence That Demands a Verdict, I naturally found this announcement to be of great interest. McDowell has steadfastly refused to even acknowledge our rebuttal, much less learn from it. Speaking at the … [Read more...]

Norman Geisler on Evangelical Scholarship and Following the Evidence Wherever It Leads

(redated post originally published on 9 November 2011) An Internet search engine quickly led me to Dr. Norman Geisler's website, where he has posted his side of the story regarding the Michael Licona inerrancy controversy. In one of Geisler's responses to Licona, he writes: Tenth, Licona claims that to reject a view like his is to "stifle scholarship." In response, we do not wish to stifle scholarship but only to reject bad scholarship. Further, as Evangelicals we must beware of desiring a … [Read more...]