debates

Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 1: “Eternal and Necessary”

Joe Hinman wants me to seriously consider two arguments for the conclusion that “God is real”.  I’m going to focus on his ABEAN argument for a number of posts, before I examine his argument from religious experience. I have attempted to summarize Hinman’s  first argument in a brief standard form argument: Hinman’s ABEAN Argument 1. Hinman’s ABEAN Argument – Part 1: “Eternal and Necessary”

The Jesus Argument

There have been many comments on my previous post God is a Person (Thank you all for your thoughts and contributions). I would like to narrow the focus of the discussion to deal with one argument at a time, so this post will only cover the first of my five arguments for the conclusion “God is The Jesus Argument

God is a Person

INTRODUCTION Joe Hinman wants to debate the existence of God with me, but before we can have an intelligent debate on this issue, we need to come to some sort of mutual understanding about the meaning of the word “God”. In my view God is a person.  In Hinman’s view God is NOT a person. God is a Person

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 Chad Gross’s Review of my Debate with Frank Turek

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

Cases for God

I’m thinking about which cases for the existence of God to focus in on, for my evaluation of Christianity.  Right now, I’m thinking about examining the cases of four well-known Christian apologists: I just realized that two of these philosophers are Thomists, and two are not Thomists. Geisler is a conservative Evangelical Christian, but his Cases for God