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...]

Christian Apologists Ignore the Best Objections to the Moral Argument

(Redated post originally published on 2 August 2014)To be precise, there are many kinds of moral arguments for theism. The question in the title is really talking about what we might call "ontological" or "metaphysical" moral arguments, the kind which claim that we need God in order to have an "ontological foundation" for objective or absolute morality.People who defend a version of this kind of argument include a veritable "Who's Who?" of contemporary Christian apologists: C.S. Lewis … [Read more...]

Are Pain and Suffering the Only Evidence for Atheism?

Frank Turek is a Christian apologist, debater, and author or co-author of several books, including I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (see my rebuttal here). He recently tweeted the following:Truth? https://t.co/MobF1LkyjF #truth #apologetics pic.twitter.com/hb8cfJobtX — Frank Turek (@Frank_Turek) February 11, 2016 Make sure you click on the link that begins with "pic.twitter.com" to see the infographic.Such a tweet is simply embarrassing. For Turek (and for his source, Dennis P … [Read more...]

A Moral Argument for God which Begs the Question against Theists

Reposting a comment I left on fellow Patheos blogger Bob Seidensticker's blog, Cross Examined. Bob was writing about Geisler's and Turek's book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Bob quoted this passage from their book:  If the atheists are right, then we might as well lie, cheat, and steal to get what we want because this life is all there is, and there are no consequences in eternity. (p. 68) Bob's response:Wow—what planet are these guys from? How many atheists think that it’s f … [Read more...]

Geisler & Turek Rebuttal: Chapter 9 (Part 2)

Chapter 9. Do We Have Early Eyewitness Testimony about Jesus? By Matthew Wade Ferguson and Jeffery Jay Lowder(This post continues where part 1 left off.)(ii) New Testament Textual Accuracy: “Textual accuracy” measures the degree to which copies of a document match that of the original document. Although none of the original New Testament documents have survived, Geisler and Turek argue that the textual accuracy of the New Testament documents is superior to that of other ancient docu … [Read more...]

Geisler & Turek Rebuttal: Chapter 9 (Part 1)

Chapter 9. Do We Have Early Eyewitness Testimony about Jesus? By Matthew Wade Ferguson and Jeffery Jay LowderAs we read them, Geisler and Turek seek to accomplish three things: (i) review the extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus; (ii) show the New Testament is textually accurate; and (iii) begin an extended, multi-chapter defense of the New Testament’s historical accuracy.(i) Extra-Biblical Evidence: According to Geisler and Turek, (a) the ratio of ancient sources which record Jesus within … [Read more...]

Geisler & Turek Rebuttal, Part 7: Chapter 8

Chapter 8. Miracles: Signs of God or Gullibility?  As I read them, Geisler and Turek (G&T) seek to establish four points: (1) If God exists, then miracles are possible; (2) Hume's argument against the credibility of miracle claims is a failure; (3) miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as acts of God to confirm a word from God); and (4) we don’t observe Biblical-quality miracles today because such miracles are not needed to confirm a new revelation from G … [Read more...]

G&T Rebuttal, Part 6: Chapter 7

Chapter 7. Mother Theresa vs. Hitler  In this chapter, G&T present a version of the moral argument for God's existence which I call the "Moral Laws Require a Moral Lawgiver Argument," which they formulate as follows. 1. Every law has a law giver. 2. There is a Moral Law.3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. Like the earlier arguments, this argument is deductively valid. Like the earlier chapters about this argument, I plan to briefly summarize G&T's defense of … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X