Jeffery Jay Lowder


Words Which Apologists, Counter-Apologists, and Activists Would Do Better Off Without

The field of Information Technology is divided into many specialties. One is “software engineering” which includes what most people think of when they hear the words “computer programming.” Another is “quality assurance” which tests software for “bugs,” i.e., malfunctions. And yet another is “usability” which tests the ability of “real world” users to actually use Words Which Apologists, Counter-Apologists, and Activists Would Do Better Off Without

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

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

Topic: “What Better Explains Reality? Naturalism or Theism”Link: https://youtu.be/ENZYEPpR2Jc Links to Specific Elements of Debate: Moderator’s Introduction: https://youtu.be/ENZYEPpR2Jc Lowder’s Opening Statement (20 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=02m23s Turek’s Opening Statement (20 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=20m55s Lowder’s First Rebuttal (10 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=44m55s Turek’s First Rebuttal (10 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=55m38s Lowder’s Cross-Examination of Turek (10 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=66m27s Turek’s Cross-Examination of Lowder (10 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=77m37s Audience Q&A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=90m30s Lowder’s Closing Statement (5 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZYEPpR2Jc#t=121m09s Video of Lowder’s Debate with Frank Turek on Naturalism vs. Theism

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

In Defense of an Evidential Argument from Evil: A Reply to William Lane Craig

Abstract: In a popular article about general arguments from evil against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God, William Lane Craig raises objections to such arguments that are consistent with those he earlier raised against Paul Draper’s evidential pain-and-pleasure argument from evil in an oral debate with Draper in 1998. In this article In Defense of an Evidential Argument from Evil: A Reply to William Lane Craig

Does Theism Explain the Necessity of Moral Truths?

The book, Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew Debate, contains a transcript of the debate between William Lane Craig and Antony Flew, responses by eight commentators, and final responses by Craig and Flew. Many of the commentators, including some of the theists, sharply criticized Craig’s moral argument for God’s existence because, they argued, some moral truths are Does Theism Explain the Necessity of Moral Truths?

Behe’s Continues to Ignore His Strongest Philosophical Critic

The blog Evolution News & Views just re-published a long essay written by Michael Behe in 2000 in which he responds to the philosophical objections of his critics. It’s unfortunate, however, that Behe has never acknowledged his strongest philosophical critic, Purdue University philosopher Paul Draper. In 2002, Draper wrote a critique of Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Behe’s Continues to Ignore His Strongest Philosophical Critic

The Essentially Good-vs.-Morally Responsible Argument for Atheism

In the spirit of Ted Drange’s 1998 article, “Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey,” I wish to sketch the following argument for consideration. Suppose we define “God” as a being who has, among other things, the following attributes: (m) essentially good; and (n) morally responsible for His actions. Using these definitions, we can construct the following argument. The Essentially Good-vs.-Morally Responsible Argument for Atheism