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...]

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...]

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...]

Debate: The Evidence for Jesus from the Talmud – Wrap-Up Comments

I summarized Joe Hinman's argument from the external evidence of the Talmud this way:1. There are MANY references to Jesus in the Talmud that were censored but that were preserved in some texts. 2. There are A FEW references to Jesus in the Talmud that were not censored. 3. ALL of the references to Jesus in the Talmud speak of Jesus in a way that assumes or implies that Jesus was a flesh‐and‐blood historical figure. 4. IF (1), (2), and (3) are true, THEN the external evidence from the Talm … [Read more...]

My Debate with Dr. Frank Turek

Last night I had the privilege of debating the question, "What Best Explains Reality? Naturalism or Theism?", at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas before an estimated crowd of approximately 900 people. Although the breakdown of Christians and atheists was probably 898:2, I truly felt like the audience was respectful. In fact, after the debate, several Christians came up to me and said some version of, "I think you were very brave to defend atheism in Topeka." I explained that I didn't feel … [Read more...]

Debate: External Evidence for Jesus – Wrapping up the Debate

Josh McDowell and various life events have distracted me from the debate with Joe Hinman about the external evidence for the existence of Jesus. (Sorry for the delay, Joe.)I wrote an introductory post about the debate:Introduction to the DebateHinman presented five arguments for the existence of Jesus based on external (non-biblical) evidence:Arguments 1 Through 4 (Talmud, Papias, Polycarp, Josephus)Argument 5 (Web of Historicity)I criticized the five arguments, typically … [Read more...]

Debate: External Evidence for Jesus – Parts 5B and 5C

Joe Hinman's fifth argument for the existence of Jesus based on external evidence is presented in two sections of his post on the Web of Historicity:5B. Big Web of Historicity5C. Jesus Myth Theory Cannot Account for the WebThe fifth argument for the existence of Jesus can be summarized in terms of a single premise:1.There is a web of historicity.Therefore:2. It is probable that Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh-and-blood historical person.Given this very simple summary, … [Read more...]

Debate: External Evidence for Jesus – Part 5A: Various Points

Some of Hinman's discussions about his five principles of historical investigation provide needed clarification of a principle, and some of his discussions fail to provide clarification of the relevant principle.  But even when Hinman fails to clarify one of his general principles of historical investigation, he often makes some significant or interesting points.  I will examine many of those specific points in this post.Hinman's discussion about (P1) fails to clarify what that principle m … [Read more...]