Opening Statement from My Debate with Frank Turek
Although I’ve recently been too busy to spend any time writing original content for this blog, I’ve decided to post my opening statement from my 2016 debate with Frank Turek. Enjoy! Introduction Good evening! I’d like to thank Craig Freerksen for organizing this debate. I’d also like to thank Dr. Turek for agreeing to participate. … Opening Statement from My Debate with Frank Turek
25 Questions for Theists
Almost five years ago, I published my “20+ Questions for Theists.” They say hindsight is 20/20. After reading the numerous comments in the combox, I can see that I was not as clear as I would have liked to have been. So I’d like to offer a clarification before reposting the list of questions, which … 25 Questions for Theists
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
How to Use the Argument From Evil
The problem of evil can be used in two different ways. It can be used offensively; that is, in an attempt to criticize and undermine theistic belief, to show that theism is false and that belief in God is unfounded. But it can also be used defensively, i.e., to show that atheism is epistemically warranted, … How to Use the Argument From Evil
The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics
My latest video, “The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics: The Things Apologists Falsely Say Depend on God, But, if God Exists, God Depends on Them,” is now available on YouTube. It is a narration of some of the many hundreds of PowerPoint slides I created in preparation for my recent debate with Frank Turek on naturalism vs. … The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics
Old but Fascinating: Mother Teresa Did Not Feel Christ’s Presence for Last Half of Her Life, Letters Reveal
LINK
25 Lines of Evidence Against Theism
Refutation of Anna Marie Perez Previous | Index | Next First Paragraph Here is Perez’s first paragraph: Atheism is a religion. Atheists act like Dracula confronting a cross when faced with the fact that their beliefs rely solely on faith. They hate the word faith, even though it’s all they’ve got. They try to make the … 25 Lines of Evidence Against Theism
We Don’t Have Father-ist Apologetics; Why Do We Need Theistic Apologetics?
Anyone who has (or had) a loving father in their lives did not spend their time studying abstract, philosophical arguments for the existence of their father. In fact, the whole idea of “father-ist apologetics” as a thing seems weird as soon as you think about it. Compare theistic apologetics. I suspect that many people — or … We Don’t Have Father-ist Apologetics; Why Do We Need Theistic Apologetics?
Is God’s Existence Obvious to Everyone?
(Redated post originally published on 26 October 2011) As a ‘friendly atheist,’ I believe that theists can be fully rational in believing that God exists. I know that some theists are ‘unfriendly theists’ in the sense that they believe (1) The existence of God is obvious to everyone. But why believe (1) is true? I’m … Is God’s Existence Obvious to Everyone?
Paul Draper, the Fallacy of Understated Evidence, Theism, and Naturalism
(Redated post originally published on 23 November 2011) Paul Draper has usefully identified a fallacy of inductive reasoning he calls the “fallacy of understated evidence.” According to Draper, in the context of arguments for theism and against naturalism, proponents of a theistic argument are guilty of this fallacy if they “successfully identify some general fact … Paul Draper, the Fallacy of Understated Evidence, Theism, and Naturalism