04.23.09
Advice for Debating William Lane Craig, part 4 (answering Loftus)
In the comments section to part 3, John Loftus — who would like to debate Craig — weighs in again:
Read the rest of this entry »
The ICR Answers All Your Questions!
In the comments section of the post analyzing the Institute for Creation Research’s recent lawsuit against the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board, there’s a significant amount of speculation as to what the ICR really hopes to achieve and how they really view their arguments.
Fortunately for us, the ICR has a new post up at their web site, written by the same lawyer who authored the ICR’s Texas complaint (James J.S. Johnson). It answers all our questions!
Read the rest of this entry »
Presuppositionalism, Part 4 (answering Cameron)
(This series begins with Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3.)
In the comments to Part 1 of this series, Cameron takes up the presuppositionalist argument for the existence of God. I don’t think his answers respond to my original claim. Here’s my evaluation of Cameron’s specific arguments:
Read the rest of this entry »
Welcome, Pharyngulites!
In addition to my evaluation of the ICR’s recent lawsuit to which PZ linked, hopefully you’ll stick around and find some other posts of interest. Here’s a sample to get you started.
In addition to being a lawyer, I’m a former debate coach, and I wrote a three-part series on advice for atheists who want to debate William Lane Craig: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
I’ve also weighed in on the Matt Dillahunty-Matt Slick pseudo-debate over the Transcendental Argument for God and presuppositionalism generally: Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3.
I think I give a pretty unique atheist’s take on the argument from morality here.
I evaluate the so-called “minimal facts” model for the Resurrection here.
My personal story of “Why I Am Not A Christian” (to borrow a phrase) begins here.
Enjoy!
