What Better Explains Reality: Naturalism or Theism? (Jeffery Jay Lowder vs Frank Turek)

Jeffery Jay Lowder and Dr. Frank Turek debate at Washburn University in Topeka, KS.
#FrankTurek #JefferyJaylowder

[@IntentionalityMentor]

Who else is here after Frank was asked who is the smartest person you ever debated? 1. My wife privately 2. Jeffery Jay Lowder publicly Me "search for this debate"

[@Frosee14]

Lolll read my mind

[@rogoferogofe]

same here.. lol

[@brettboyd4171]

Yup

[@Bythegraceofgod1646]

🙋‍♀️

[@chvazquez]

Derick Butler 🙋

[@41A2E]

Man, THIS is what a debate should be like; there aren't "gotcha" moments, it's two honest people trying to understand the other's position, and rationalizing them out. It's like two mates having a drink talking about what they believe. I cannot describe how refreshing that is.

[@utubepunk]

Turek isn't honest.

[@JM-ot8ux]

Well, except that Frank Turek isn't honest or rational.

[@PrincessTikikitty]

@@JM-ot8ux can you point what he said that is dishonesty?

[@jackwhite8238]

@@PrincessTikikitty if you can’t understand your self how frank turek is intellectually dishonest then you are in way over your head and probably need to go back to doing makeup tips

[@johnaajohni2129]

@@JM-ot8uxthe atheists arrived

[@lovepeople951]

I came here after watching the video about who was the smartest person you debated.

[@viraltube3639]

Lol same

[@disciple15]

Same with me.

[@geraldpchuagmail]

Same. Hehe.

[@sandyande]

Me too LOL

[@accordiontv1]

Ditto

[@DDFergy1]

Mr Lowder presented Atheism the best I have heard. It is worth spending time understanding what he said and to study his study of the arguments. I am a Christian but I like to understand others and if possible be of service to help in the journey of life.

[@IBenZik]

Why even waste your time with Lowder's psyco-babble?

[@170221dn]

Is there any merit in looking at what he said in case what he says proves your position as a Christian wrong?

[@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia]

@@170221dn It wouldn't though. "Ghosts" still exist, they're actually demons pretending to be the souls of diseased people. I've experienced these entities a few times. So there is a supernatural realm even if he disproves christianity, there is a God of some type out there. But the God of the bible is the true God, and I would know since I come from a satanic family. They know who the true God is because satan fears Jesus.

[@170221dn]

Donaldduck 593863 So you say he could disprove Christianity and you then go on to say the god of the bible would still be true. What could convince you otherwise?

[@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia]

@@170221dn You can't. I've been around paranormal stuff. You can't take my memories away.

[@Jell-E]

I must say it was nice to finally see a debate where both men were kind to one another and didnt get heated.

[@hallorican]

Yes! It was so refreshing.

[@nathanmartin7677]

it was a good debate. I was in the audience.

[@joelunderhill126]

Hey me too!

[@theprogrammer8200]

Lucky you :)

[@bjornmormont6644]

I have become an expert in jelly bean mathematics after watching this.

[@pitakchonsuriyong5842]

Me too

[@grant7476]

This was actually a pretty nice debate, with little to no useless rhetoric.

[@RyeinGoddard]

Yeah only wish it were longer.

[@LiquidRR]

As much as I used to venerate hitchens..being older now I recognize that much of his earlier impact on me was due to his rhetorical style and charm rather than his supposed dismantling of religion.

[@bryansphere6359]

As a Christian I can appreciate this particular atheist debater giving more of a (positive case) for naturalism, and not just taking the posture of poking holes. He seems like a gentleman and is obviously very educated!

[@antoninoalvarez5281]

Yeah but his education won’t admite him in heaven.

[@bryansphere6359]

@@antoninoalvarez5281 I didnt claim otherwise

[@davek6949]

This is one of the better debates I've seen. Lowder is probably the best representative I've seen of the atheistic side yet. He was able to make cogent arguments without being argumentative, resorting to name-calling, etc. Both debaters were kind and respectful and that makes for an extremely enjoyable debate.

[@IM-tl7qv]

I think Graham Oppy is very impressive as a defender of atheism.

[@majmage]

If we're honest, atheists don't even have to show up to the debates. * ideas start unknown. Only with evidence can we know they're true. * well theism is belief that a god exists. Only justified if we have evidence god(s) exist. * no theist ever presents that, so the idea remains unproven. * meaning gods are unknown and non-belief (atheism) is the rational position. _...so atheism is the rational position entirely because theists never justify their own position._ Meaning atheists technically don't even need to show up to debate: theists fail to prove god(s) exist on their own. Basically the atheist is only needed if a theist creates an illogical argument and wrongly calls it "evidence of god", at which point you need people there to ask Turek, _"where's your evidence of objective morality, and the evidence proving that god would be the best explanation of it if you could prove it existed?"_ at which point Turek wouldn't have evidence of either (and he'd need _both!_ ) and that just helps make it clearer that theists never have evidence of a god.

[@JezzaTheChamp]

Everyone else Frank debates make their arguments based on emotion. Jeffrey was a knowledgeable and stand up guy.

[@oldscorp]

Jeffrey makes statements based on false premises. Just because he talks fast and says a lot of definitions and declarations that doesnt make them true.

[@Kyle72396]

@@oldscorp you gotta respect his intellect though

[@MrAdamo]

@@oldscorp could you enlighten me on one of the premises you believe to be obviously false?

[@boyofGod81]

Jeffrey the future believer in Jesus

[@tomwinchester55]

So you are saying frank makes his arguments based on testable evidence?

[@TheUnapologeticApologists]

Definitely one of the smartest atheists out there. Much respect.

[@jasonliss3173]

Get em Frank !

[@MJ-tj3nd]

I'm a complete theist , but I really respect lowery and appreciate his argument... I'm defiantly going to visit his website . This is how a debate should be , thanks to both gentlemen for respecting each other's views. Also , Both men are veterans ... thanks guys !

[@Limosethe]

Everytime it goes from Turek speaking to Jeffrey Louder speaking its like entering into an oasis after a huge trek theough inhospitable desert. There's a huge chasm of seperation between the shrieking and wailing of Frank Turek who relies on the level of his voice to mask his arguments like perfume and the simplicity and brilliance as well as pure logic of Jeffrey Louders rheyroic. My God I wish Jeffrey Louder had other public debates, let alone a KZbin channel.

[@RG-ds7ob]

Now I agree with Dr. Turek about Mr. Lowder. I admire the honesty of Mr. Lowder, I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Lowder will be an Christian apologist sometime in the future.

[@GospelEDGE]

Let's pray for Mr Lowder

[@itisfinished4646]

Amen

[@manne8575]

Amen, that would definitely be an awesome testimony.

[@andreiski_5775]

Lmao keep dreaming boys

[@aymanseder5887]

🙏 ❤

[@phlaxus5288]

Mr. Lowder I, as a Christian, thank you for testing our beliefs in way, that is profitable for either side. Great debate. Thank you Mr. Turek for giving me confidence in my world view with your great arguments that, one more time, could not be falsified.

[@rs5352]

Kudos to Frank for just putting title of the debate instead of something like, "Atheist demolished...." or "Atheist brought to tears..." or "Atheist on suicide watch after..."

[@Simon-Burns592]

Turek started off with an ignorant or dishonest Straw man e.g. The atheistic view is that no one created something out of nothing. Link me to one person who asserts this. If you start off with ignorantly or dishonestly is it still possible to win a debate ?

[@thetannernation]

simon burns When he says created, he means the universe coming into existence. Atheists to believe that. They do believe that there is no one (no personal entity) who created something (the universe) from nothing (prior to the universes existence)

[@memememememe515]

actually Turek said this is the best debate he had with an Atheist.... and he is right.. even as a Christian I can appreciate the work Lowder put in this debate...

[@gregsmith5134]

simon burns Every astrophysicist says the universe had a beginning. And they say that time space and matter all came into existence at the same instant. And whatever caused it has to be timeless space less and immaterial. So yes something out of nothing.

[@franciscocepeda8416]

Atheists keep saying the universe either created itself or that it is eternal when the universe is a thing which needs to be created in order to be. However under Creationism there is a Being, God spaceless, timeless, inmaterial, personal, in- telligent, moral, perfect, creator and sustainer of the universe and everything in it.

[@maxptyson6522]

Many years ago via email, Jeffrey Jay Lowder helped me deconstruct. We had a long correspondence. He answered all my many questions. It is good to see what he looks and sounds like. It’s been a long time.

[@josepacheco5008]

Lowder is a very smart person, he would make a great pastor/apologist!

[@percibalfelicesjr4203]

agree

[@tomwinchester55]

The truth is more important to him to become a pastor.

[@JosiahFickinger]

@@tomwinchester55 But what if the truth is Christianity 😜

[@Malachilovesjesus1021]

@@JosiahFickinger it is

[@tomwinchester55]

@@JosiahFickinger the burden of proof is on you....give us your best evidence that a God exists.

[@kylealandercivilianname2954]

I've seen many debates and lowder was the first atheist that actually gave good arguments and I was impressed. But I feel that turek won the debate when lowder was unable to answer his questions.

[@eventhisidistaken]

It's rare for anyone to leave a debate with a changed mind, so if you went in as a Christian, you're almost certainly going to conclude that Turek won, and if you're not, you're almost certainly going to conclude Lowder won. I'll say this though, Turek lost the second he began with the same tired stupid strawman he uses in every one of his public performances (which is what they are for him - performances for which he gets paid), in which he claims "atheists say the universe was created from nothing by no-one". He says this same stupidity over and over and over, in spite of being told endless times that that is certainly not what atheists say. What do you call someone who knowingly keeps repeating the same disinformation?

[@linktesla9488]

T Oadaly, how do you think the universe was created?

[@kerosun4598]

I thought the same thing. I feel Lowder held his own even though I think he did try to appeal to authority towards the end of his question session with Turek. However, once Turek went into his question session, he showed how poorly equipped naturalism is in regards to certain non-physical traits to humans, life and even the universe.

[@disrupt94]

that's a pointless question to ask, since we have no information of a time "before" the universe we can make no inference about it, only reasonable guesses.

[@mostever2882]

Dude Frank will always win because the truth never loses

[@MunchyHam]

I always love watching these debates. Thanks for the post Frank.

[@leftykiller8344]

What a fantastic debate. Two well thought out and charitable people, with both sides staying with the logic instead of throwing in intentional red herrings, straw-men, or ad hominem. I wish more debates were like this.

[@therick363]

It’s sad so many can’t engage in adult conversations

[@leftykiller8344]

Agreed.

[@PBuffdaddy00]

I have to give Mr. Lowder much credit. The guy has some pretty decent arguments. There are many guys out there arguing for atheism that aren't really saying anything. This dude has his stuff together. That was fun to watch.

[@HoosiersVsWorld]

David Probus I agree, it was refreshing to have genuine arguments. Many atheistic arguments are in fact self defeating but this guy is very smart and has arguments that reflect it.

[@henryv4222]

David Probus the way he backs himself into a corner 're transitional fossils (of which there are zero) is pretty funny. also his reasons for doing this are unsatisfactory.

[@Secular_Outpost]

How did Lowder "back himself into a corner"? And what do you mean by "his reasons for doing this are unsatisfactory"? Reasons for doing what?

[@RYANkMCCARTHY]

To keep things simple with respect to transitional fossils: Evolution does not predict the existence of transitional fossils. i.e. the following propositions are false: Statement 1 - [If evolution is true, then transitional fossils exist] Statement 2 - [If evolution is true, then it is probable that there are transitional fossils. Statement 1 is false since it is logically possible for the antecedent to be true while the consequent is false. Statement 2 is false since it is logically possible for the antecedent to be true while the consequent is false. You might wonder, then, why some biologists say fossils in general are evidence for evolution. This is because evolution, in conjunction with specific geological and other hypotheses, does predict fossils. But this is not to say evolution, in conjunction with specific geological and other hypotheses that predict fossils, would predict specific kinds of fossils such as transitional ones. People need to understand basic first order logic, basic probability theory and basics of all the relevant sciences because they make arguments about transitional fossils.

[@henryv4222]

Ryan McCarthy your assertions that people need primers in what you call basic sciences, to whit they may then be then able to access your evolution worldview devoid of transitional forms, is a fanatical deception. Darwinism is a corrupt and debunked myth - this strong delusion has but one thing going for it: the truth that Jesus Christ walked upon the Earth and that He is Jewish is stark and testable. this is a moral question not an intellectual one, and for some of our most brilliantly gifted physicists and self proclaimed "evolutionary biologists" they are willing to posit - professionally and publicly - the bizarre and fantastical ideas about alien spawning and string theory or multiverses. An honest person (scientific community or elsewhere) wouldn't tiptoe around the overwhelming evidence we have for a loving God.

[@923reiko]

i love when you do these debates your awesome Frank Turek

[@JMz685]

The Atheist is pretty awesome too!

[@Simon-Burns592]

Turek started off with a Straw man e.g. The atheistic view is that no one created something out of nothing. Link me to one person who asserts this. Do what I've asked of you and you will realise that what he is asserting is nothing but a product of his fanciful imagination.

[@jamesstew4791]

Furthermore the fucker keeps yelling and wears rimless glasses and worse by far commits the "I wish to continue selling shitty books" fallacy.

[@DDFergy1]

simon burns Lawrence Krauss, Dawkins, Lowder and many others state that no 'One', ie. person, caused the Universe. Try not being so sloppy in your statement. Try again to say what you mean so we can understand your point.

[@Simon-Burns592]

Douglas Ferguson You are guilty of quote mining. Here's Turek's full quote "no one created something out of nothing" Link me to one atheist who claims there was nothing.

[@salarbasiri5959]

one of the best debates I've ever watched. Strong arguments on both sides

[@TimothyBukowskiApologist]

I really enjoy listening to people like Lowder as an apologist, MUCH more compelling than the more "popular" atheists. Definitely makes me really think about the arguments

[@VlaDiDaDiY]

Timothy Bukowski agreed. Ever since i've seen him debate Phil Fernandes, I've always wanted him to debate again. I think he'd be an excellent opponent against William Lane Craig

[@TimothyBukowskiApologist]

VlaDiDaDiY That would indeed be a good debate, it would definitely be a big deal, on the same level as Craig vs Carrier. I think another one that would be easier to get to happen would be Lowder vs a guy named Blake Giunta who takes a similar Bayesian approach to the matter. I think that would be a very useful debate for both sides

[@Secular_Outpost]

Timothy and VlaDiDaDiY- Thanks for the kind words. I would be happy to debate Craig and/or Giunta. FYI, in case you haven't already seen it, I have another video which rebuts Turek's book, "Stealing from God." Search on KZbin for "The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics."

[@TimothyBukowskiApologist]

@Secular Outpost No problem Jeff! Let it be known that you do have theistic "fans". I know Blake Giunta a bit, so the next time I contact him I will let him know you would be open to a debate

[@caseylee3345]

Timothy Bukowski I don't think he is much of an apologists. but I see what you're saying. and that's a good thing.

[@I-Need-Saving]

Basically if you add the 3 letters “ism” at the end of every word you’ll sound really smart.

[@brando3342]

@Dr. TooflessS1k The presuppositionalism of scientism creates a solicism in any syllogism, that naturalism on pragmatism rules out solipsism.

[@akanshasmith9216]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@akanshasmith9216]

Your jokeism is hilarious

[@menian27]

couldn't be more agreeism

[@SomeRandomGuy789]

@@menian27 Ism reallyism likism yourism commentism andism thism originalism commentism asism wellism

[@andreiski_5775]

Lowder unloaded so much solid evidence, so much impactful arguments , if unpacked, it completely buries supernatural belief. Franks arguments were ok but he isn't philosophically minded enough to even have this debate.

[@finnrachul3529]

Has anyone else noticed how rare it is for the atheist to start a debate? Made for an interesting debate

[@estibensilvamacario6581]

I thought I was the only one who thought this

[@estibensilvamacario6581]

I thought I was the only one who thought this

[@jackjones3657]

This is one of the best debates I've seen on theism and atheism/naturalism. Regardless of how intelligent or sharp either presenter is I logically cannot make the leap that everything came from virtually nothing or that such order came out of virtual chaos, it requires too much faith to be reasonable.

[@TomAnderson_81]

Jack Jones who said it was from nothing?

[@majmage]

_Jack,_ 3 years have passed and some of us are still wondering _who said it was from nothing?_ It's like kids who don't know 2+2 * Jimmy McTheist says it's 6 * Bobby Atheist says "we don't have evidence of the right answer, so we don't know" * Sally McTheist says it requires too much faith to believe Bobby's answer of "8". * Well...wait a sec, that wasn't Bobby's answer right? * Also, ironically it takes _exactly as much faith_ to believe Sally's imaginary "8" answer as Jimmy's "6" answer. (Both have identical evidence. Meaning zero evidence.) Well it's 2023 now. We still don't have evidence of the right answer. We still don't have evidence of a god. So we should be honest with ourselves and not believe it (and hopefully in the 3 years since JackJones' last comment he's already come to this realization)

[@airplayrule]

@@majmage U waited for 3 years when u can find many examples yourself? -A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is the claim that "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing-involving the absence of space itself and-which may one day return to nothing You play strawman to make up a situation where theists are compared to dumb kids, just so u win? how about kids who don't know what1 x infinite equals. * Jimmy McTheist says it's infinite * Bobby Atheist believes in abiogenesis, makes moral assertions, n argues against theism n atheists, n says "The answer is unkown. I simply lack a belief. Lump we in with agnostics so we atheists can inflate our popularity n shift the burden of proof. i will demand evidence that i will ignore, downplay, dismiss, distort, n disrespect etc. * Sally McTheist says it requires too much faith to trust in Bobby n his vague, contradictory, faulty beliefs n lack of answers. *Bobby says any1 who questions him, is distorting his position n is wrong. * Also, ironically it takes exactly as much faith to believe Bobby as it does a positive atheist who does proclaim he's positive there's no God. (Both have identical evidence. Meaning zero evidence.) There’s good n bad people everywhere. That includes theists n atheists. But if everything is the result of abiogenesis n the laws of physics, then so are thoughts n claims that everything is the result of the laws of physics n that there’s no supreme being with a supreme moral code. Your thoughts n claims maybe like the noise of a faulty robot that accidentally formed. Without that supreme moral code, your claims about morality is your opinion vs some1 elses. That includes anything u say about any other “moral” terms u wanna “sneak in” to justify your “morality” claims (circular reasoning). Thus, whatever u claim is or isn’t moral (or ethical, empathy, fair, common sense, well-being, non-aggression, pleasure, good, or whatever terms I left out) is opinion too. Saying something is moral because u think it helped our common ancestors survive n reproduce, is an appeal to nature fallacy, is speciest, n assumes that human survival n reproduction is moral (that’s more circular reasoning n begging the question). If society defines those terms (an appeal to popularity n force fallacies) then if the previous, current n future leaders of a nation, like secular atheistic N. Korea, got the world to agree that all “moral” terms should be defined by the leader, n it becomes law too, then according to secular atheism (n Darwin’s theory because he’s maximizing his ability to survive n reproduce) he’s not immoral. Even IF a secular atheist can prove how to know morality, n some people agree, it wouldn’t offer any objective standard or answer for WHY a leader who violates that “morality” without empathy or punishment, is morally obligated to change. Citing “immoral” religious scriptures/people is cherry picking, n would contradict the claim that there’s no objective morals in the 1st place, n it wouldn’t make sense (as already explained) n even if it did, it’s a personal attack fallacy, which can be used against atheists more so, since TONS of studies show; -more people have been terminated by secular atheists than any religious people, even though 93% of the world isn’t atheist or agnostic (that number also debunks the claim that secular atheism is common sense, as do science journals that cite atheists are the least trusted demographic, even among other atheists). -Religious people donate n volunteer way more than atheists. -Religious people have more stable marriages n self control -etc. If abiogenesis experiments keep failing, n our common ancestors for countless millennia included advanced humans, who had Vedic scriptures that are where all major sciences n religions stemmed from, via divine inspiration, n most modern people have a very limited, flawed, biased understanding of what I said in this paragraph, n of all the major religions, will u accept it? Or say you’re open to a detailed comment n video (on channel “Playitalready” where the better vids have yet to be uploaded) that provide logic, evidence, n sources?

[@4ndytrout46]

Good thing reality isn't dictated by your incredulity.

[@drzaius844]

Lowder said in the debate that he doesn’t believe that anything came from nothing.

[@41A2E]

I am a Christian, however I have to agree with Lowder on the Fine-tuning argument. I don't think it can be entirely debunked, but frankly it does not carry nearly as much weight and many Christians think it does. I think it leans much more towards a philosophical type argument than an evidential type argument.

[@CanadianOrth]

It says a lot about Lowder that he pointed out arguments in favor of theism.

[@PBuffdaddy00]

I honestly don't think he is a staunch atheist. He said that he is open minded. I would say he definitely is more along the lines of agnostic. Great debate.

[@workinpromo]

Ikr, he's so much more chill and likable than people like Dawkins and Hitchens. I really really hope he eventually becomes Christian. Even though having a Frank Turek on the team is already an overkill lol.

[@caseylee3345]

David Probus agnostiscm deals with knowledge, not belief. knowledge is a subset of belief. you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

[@caseylee3345]

Tyson Sprinter hmm.. the vast majority of gamers in the u.s. are Christian. I don't understand your point.

[@henryv4222]

Tyson Sprinter playing video games is squandering the time you have here on Earth. If you are a Christian and spend a significant number of hours in these (mostly) immoral worlds then you are rejecting the Bible, and rejecting Jesus Christ who offers a life of power and truth and freedom in submission. Don't waste your talents.

[@jp370]

"we are moist robots" "overgrown bacteria" lol Frank sure knows how to troll atheists

[@JNich-yc6cc]

Wrong he actually said moist roybuts

[@richardlopez6226]

J. Cortez roybuts lol

[@MichaelG485]

When your actual arguments can't stand on their own, 'trolling' is the only way to go.

[@eternalbyzantium262]

Dont forget oversized germs XD

[@kuroryudairyu4567]

He only trolls himself, without even knowing

[@bless_you_361]

Best argument I’ve heard for atheism. Appreciate Mr. Lowder for being honest and humble in his pursuit of truth

[@DarwinBeltz]

There is only one Universe and it is life permitting. Therefore the ratio is 1 to 1

[@emiliog8548]

Jeffrey had heaps good points! Frank could you please do a deconstruction of these!? The debate was too short for this to happen!

[@Ryansarcade9]

They were both very congenial and had a calm discussion. Good job guys!

[@anotheperspective]

Great debate. Lowder is a very smart guy, he uses very big words and many definitions and mixed up logic but Frank is so clear and simple enough for any ordinary person to follow and understand. I just love the fact Lowder made a case, defended it and didn’t go into any theological issues, unlike other atheist who are just angry with the God of the Bible.

[@davidreinhart418]

If you have a good product sales are easy.

[@loganleatherman7647]

@David Reinhart Too bad you don’t get this product until after you die. No way to actually know if the product is any good, but boy does he know how to sell hope in a bottle.

[@4ndytrout46]

It wasn't mixed up logic. You just couldn't understand it. Just because Frank uses dumbed down terms doesn't mean he is right.

[@georgekanyoni8029]

You just can't get enough of these debates.

[@ibukunoluwaolufemi-ajiboso3633]

Seeing a lot of people comment about how great Jeffery Lowder is, and it makes it clear that most people aren't familiar with the best defenses of Naturalism

Great debate, very respectful gentlemen on stage.

[@austinpowell3478]

Jeff is my favorite atheist debater by far! Insightful points, and a sense of humor! Incredibly refreshing. So glad this friendly conversation took place.

[@quesiachagas5446]

Brazil 🇧🇷 I love hearing this kind of debates. Love it!

[@RumpyxD]

Watching*

[@auxtas]

I will say that Jay Lowder is brighter than Hitchens (the blame method) and Harris (dismissing method). He is very realistic in his arguments. But over all, Frank buried him 100%

[@Jacob-ls2fv]

Always does 😇🙏🏻🛐

[@Jacob-ls2fv]

Carl Valentine hes a deceiver brother trynna make people believe what he believes

[@oldscorp]

@Carl Valentine So how do you think the universe came to be? How about life? Frank says that either something caused the universe and life to exist, or nothing did. Nothing makes no sense and violates the law of causality so something is the more reasonable answer. The finetuning and inteligent design of life and the laws of the universe point to "something" inteligent and aware. The moral laws point to a moral being. The fact that He created time, matter and space means He is all powerfull (did it from nothing) , all knowing (did everything at a miraculous level of detail, complexity and design) , timeless (created time therefore doesnt have a begining or and end, its THE ONE being outside time ), infinite and eternal....we call that GOD. Thats plenty of justification to believe. Whats YOUR justification for not believing? Is there a third option for how the universe came to be, or life? NO ! It wasnt there forever! Einstein, Hubble, Penzias and Wilson proved it , and even if they didnt, the universe had to begin at some point, because you cant get infinite past time by adding more time before today. Add 1 day , 1 year, a trillion billion katrilion years , you will never reach a date before today that becomes infinite. And today couldnt have arived if the past was infinite. Theres also no such thing as the Big Crunch. The rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. It will never stop. And even if it did, we already know that there is not enough gravity to even keep galaxies together, so the scientists say its dark matter untill they figure out what holds them together. Be it dark matter or whatever it is and however we will name it when we discover it, it keeps the universe from going Big Crunch. Youre using psychological projection. Youre "guilty" of the very thing youre "acussing" believers of. You pretend Frank didnt speak about all this, like you will pretend i didnt speak about all this. And youre gonna go on thinking that neither of us justified our belief, and that we put God at the end of what we dont know. Youre gonna quack "God of the gaps" for the million time, and go back to worshiping yourself, your vices, and/or go on cursing God for not giving you your "toys for Christmass" or "killing" some loved one that you think should have lived forever; and never actually think about how matter from non matter and abiogenesis makes 0 scientific, logical or phylosophical sense.

[@carlvalentine3569]

@@oldscorp "So how do you think the universe came to be? How about life? Frank says that either something caused the universe and life to exist, or nothing did. Nothing makes no sense and violates the law of causality so something is the more reasonable answer" I will agree with what you've said here, I will grant you that something caused the universe to be formed/come into existence, note the phrase you've used "something caused the universe" " something is the more reasonable answer" "The finetuning and intelligent design of life and the laws of the universe point to "something" intelligent and aware." now, to claim for "finetuning and intelligent design" you'll need to explain/show the difference between an untuned and unintelligent designed universe, so please explain the difference? also what "laws of the universe" the universe has conditions/features WE call some of these things laws, laws is manmade regulations "The moral laws point to a moral being" that just states that we have morals and some of them are written down in law by the people who are the lawmakers of our societies/nations," it says nothing about a God that gives morals. You then went onto the usual rant that believers give, but I'll just point to a few things "TIME" is just a human concept, just like mathematics, we use the conditions/features of the universe to develop the concept of TIME and MATHEMATICS, now, matter and space, where did God get these things from, you said he.. (did it from nothing) but I ask you to look at what you said in your opening paragraph "Nothing makes no sense" You really need to put your logical thinking cap on, "(created time, therefore, doesn't have a beginning or and end, it's THE ONE being outside time )" "infinite and eternal" WOW, does that statement makes any sense, please let me know how we can detect something that exists out of time? What natural condition/feature would explain WHY ONLY ONE God can exist, if one God can exist, why not two, three etc You said God is "infinite and eternal" so who or what created God's environment, anything or any being that exist requires an environment, just think about it, that environment will always come first unless you can explain otherwise. The rest of your comments are basically just preaching "Youre gonna quack "God of the gaps" for the million time, and go back to worshiping yourself, your vices, and/or go on cursing God for not giving you your "toys for Christmass" or "killing" some loved one that you think should have lived forever; and never actually think about how matter from non matter and abiogenesis makes 0 scientific, logical or phylosophical sense." believers are very quick to use the information that science has shown about the universe but are very quick on the other hand to dismiss what science is telling when it comes to God, science sees no need to include a God in anything. Finally, if you're an honest person, you must realise that God has never said a single word, all we have is words and stories attributed to Gods by men throughout time, if a God really existed he would not have come up with a nonsensical story such as the christian religion story.

[@stafinator3932]

@@carlvalentine3569 Well let me just say... Murdering someone like this is eViL

[@RealTrentertainment]

I'm sure that I'm echoing others when I say that this was one of the better debates. I've watched many debates and I'd never heard of Jeffery Jay Lowder, but he's made quite an impression on me. It's especially refreshing to see someone this intelligent and articulate after watching one of the debates with Michael Shermer, who does atheists almost no justice at all. I thought Lowder refuted Turek's points really well. I'll have to find more of him.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Hats off to Mr Lowder. He presented a class on naturalism. He brought in a boatload of data which shows his dedication to the study of his argument. Instead of relying on witty comments and catchy sayings as other atheists would do, gives a gauntlet of information coming from multiple categories for naturalism. Perhaps the hardest debate for Frank Tureck to date, and the best atheist debater i've ever seen. Wanna see more on Lowder

[@thegospelcallTGC]

Best debate I have ever seen! I praise God for Frank Turek; He is blessed by God.

[@reedgreen6388]

Lowder stays on point with the questions asked more than any atheist ive listened too. Frank is an awesome debater!

[@reasonablechristianity]

I have to admit out of all the atheists/naturalists I've seen in debates, Jeffery Jay Lowder is by far the best. And even though I am a Christian, I think Frank lost this one, in terms of who presented their arguments better Jeffery did much better. Great debate overall, loved it. Very rational and reasonable as all debates should be.

[@sidtom2741]

Both kinda used circular reasoning. Lowder didn't quite reconcile the issue of morality. I think theism had a stronger position there. But he's definitely one of the best debaters I've seen and most respectable too. So I won't claim a winner, but I'll admire great arguments when I see them.

[@edgargutierrez1844]

Lowder was running in circles when he was asked the question of morality and truth, he didn’t give a direct answer. Lowder basically said “I don’t know” but he didn’t answer morality and truth.

[@johnaajohni2129]

I have to admit turek won this one ngl

[@reasonablechristianity]

@@user-cr5pz2oc5y Jay is still wrong though.

[@roberthahn5235]

@@edgargutierrez1844 lowder kept saying he had a slide

[@brandong2228]

Out of all the debates of seen with Frank I agree Lowder’s the smartest, most reasonable guy he’s debated. Jeffrey actually made compelling and real arguments and didn’t use so many emotions or feelings like Hitchens or Shermer etc., this debate was a true debate with respect. Maybe it’s because I’ve never seen the material, but I was quite confused by a lot of Jeffrey’s points and I’m not sure what the jelly bean representation even meant. I think a big issue is that, if God or a god (whether it’s the God of the Bible or Allah or any other) exists, that God/a god can do anything and everything He wants to do. If God exists, He can’t actually contradict the idea of time, because He’s God. He can create time inside of the universe, but He’s God, He’s outside of time, He isn’t affected by time and there can be a beginning of time inside the universe that God isn’t affected by, because He isn’t in the universe, because as Frank stated, most people/scientists no matter their beliefs are coming to the conclusion there was a beginning. I’m no expert but I wanted to point that one thing out about what Lowder said, because it seems he’s assuming God is a limited being affected by things inside the universe. I thought it was a good debate and once the Q&A hit, Jeffrey definitely seemed to hit a roadblock, I feel like you could tell with so many pauses, UMs, saying he lost his train of thought, etc. He’s very smart, just not on the side of the debate that’s correct. If he one day finds the truth, he’d be an excellent Christian apologist, no doubt about that

[@loganleatherman7647]

Every positive statement you made here is merely an assumption/assertion with nothing to back it up other than reference to unfounded possibilities.

[@majmage]

I do agree Hitchens appealed to emotions and generally had fairly mediocre arguments. But I mean...none of his debates involved any actual evidence of a god, so it's not like he ever _lost_ exactly, right? I mean look at Turek here: the culmination of his career at this point is presenting illogical argument after illogical argument: * does he present evidence proving a god (A) exists and (B) caused fine tuning? He doesn't. So it's just a baseless assertion. (It's him saying something is true for no good reason at all.) * does he present evidence of (A) objective morality existing, (B) a god existing, and (C) a god causing morality? Nope. Same deal. So it's just a non-stop series of bad arguments, and people who care about the truth should be willing to admit they're bad and be non-believers.

[@gabriellps2]

@@majmage the same way jeffrey didnt prove mental exists, they literally began the debate assuming that they worldview were correct. If u dont assume anything and tried to explain the reality from scratch you're going anywhere, not even philosophy in 19th century could not do that. Let me show u one example, can u show me evidence that other minds exists? If u cant, then naturalism is false, can u show me evidence that the reality is objective uniform? u cant, then materialism is false. That makes no sense brother, you need to assume certain things in order to even be able to think, otherwise your mind is just hallucinating and nothing that comes out of it is any sort of reliable information

[@majmage]

@@gabriellps2 I noticed you ignored Turek's mistakes (some of which I explained). Is that because you agree Turek made those mistakes and those aren't evidence of a god? I noticed you're trying to raise the bar for evidence to "absolute certainty". Why do you think you're doing that? I think it's because that's the only position where every other belief is similar to god-belief in our inability to prove it. *Meanwhile when you cross a busy street, you rely on evidence,* because it's the reliable way of knowing truth. With literally every technology benefitting your life right now (including the device you're using to reply to me), *evidence caused the knowledge that enabled us to build it.* Meanwhile we don't have evidence of any gods. It should also be a red flag that you're desperate to change the topic (from defending theism to attacking naturalism). As for me defending naturalism, again: you're reading this on a device which was only possible by relying on evidence, and so reality certainly seems more consistent with naturalism based on your own experiences with it! No assumptions are required. The mind can start with nothing, observe reality, and continually refine one's own mental model of reality based on the new inputs, without ever having 100% confidence that everything observed is true. Lastly to be clear: I'm not a naturalist, but it does better-explain reality. By that I mostly only mean that I don't commit fully to naturalism's claim that the natural world is all that exists. Instead, I simply point out *knowledge requires evidence,* and so if we can only record evidence of natural things we can only know natural things (and anyone claiming to know supernatural ones doesn't know those things). Maybe someone defines that as "Soft Naturalism" or something, I dunno, but I definitely don't personally commit to the full naturalism position. But again, it's still a better explanation of reality than theism, which just invents nonsense and really has no explanatory power (look around: how many technologies between the computer, the desk, the drywall/brick, the electricity powering the lights -- how many of those things are the result of relying on theism to navigate reality? Zero. None. Theism didn't explain those things. An evidence-based approach to knowing reality did.)

[@gabriellps2]

@@majmage You missed the whole point, i did not attack naturalism, all i've saying is that you're asking for a proof of the theism thesis axioms, that god exists and he's the objective moral being. If you keep asking for a guy to proof the axioms of their thesis, then when it comes to naturalism you will need to first off proof that your mind is good enough to make sense of reality. You tried to say that knowledge is based on evidence, that means you're assuming your mind is good enough to make sense of evidences, which nobodys asks you to proof that. If you really try to come to sense of reality without assuming ANYTHING, you will get to the point of the actual inability to come sense of reality cause reality is what we comprehend of reality.

[@jayrpimentel3552]

After Frank said Jeff was the smartest atheist he debated (next to his wife 😆) I searched this immediately.. Also, I read a question where a guy asked if WL Craig would ever debate Dillahunty, David Silverman or Jeff.. Kevin Harris of Reasonable Faith said that out of the three, only Jeff would provide some meaningful exchange. So that's quite a compliment..

[@majmage]

To be fair, theists claiming a god exists with no evidence leads them to have a pretty faulty idea of who presents the best arguments. I haven't heard much from Silverman (familiar with who he is, just seen maybe 1 debate ever from him), but Dillahunty is familiar with the logical errors made by all the major arguments for gods (and that's all Turek or Craig have!). Granted that doesn't make Dillahunty special: _anyone_ with the internet can easily look up the mistakes of those arguments. So honestly in 2023 when we have the internet, it's bizarre anyone's suckered by these bad arguments at all. At least pre-internet while the logical errors were still known they were much less widely-circulated, and so theists could be excused for having never heard the errors of their arguments for god. But nowadays? There's just no excuse; people are just deliberately believing something that's indefensible nonsense.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

Wow, well done to Jeffery Jay Lowder. What an absolute destruction of Dr. Turek. I can see why William Lane Craig has been ducking a debate with you since the late 1990s.

[@ynzmadeleine]

Turek is spot on! any honest person will recognize it.

[@ynzmadeleine]

@Carl Valentine evidence is facts or information that raises or lowers the probability of something... what is evidence for God? God is not another physical part of nature... if He is the Creator of the entire physical universe, He cannot be one of the physical things inside of the universe. But scientific evidence can serve as support for a premise in a philosophical argument for God's existence... It's actually incoherent to look for direct physical evidence for a non-physical being. That only leaves us two options, we examine the evidence we have and recognize that intelligence, logic, the faculty of knowledge or reason, and objective truth exist ... or we can reject it, and say that all this is just a happy coincidence ... the process behind the origin of life was not driven by some kind of intelligence, and in that case, any conversation about it is irrelevant, life is nothing more than a subjective experience, but to honestly hold on to that point of view you need to give up to many of your basic intuitions, you couldn't even be sure of your own notion of existence. So, yes, any honest person will recognize it.

[@ynzmadeleine]

Carl Valentine LOL 😂 pointless discussion

[@guyjosephs5654]

@@ynzmadeleine no scientist says it was just happy coincidence that we are here. So if it is incoherent to look for direct physical evidence for god-then it would make sense to look for natural explanations for everything we see. What is wrong with that?

[@ynzmadeleine]

@@guyjosephs5654 Hi! First let me clarify that I like some of the arguments that Turek presents, but I don't agree with all his theology. Yeah you can understand how the world works using your consciousness to experience it. No problem there. But explaining its origin it’s another thing. Both, science and logic suggest that the universe it's not eternal in the past. And because effects can’t be its own cause, it’s illogical to claim that the universe caused itself. Again, logic suggests that everything that begins to exist has a cause... this is where some naturalist claim that only the universe began to exist and therefore everything that exists is reducible to atoms... I can't agree with that, my consciousness also began to exist... claiming the opposite goes against my intuition and my very sense of identity... there wouldn't be a real difference between talking to each other and talking with your computer... Neuroscientific studies suggests that consciousness it's not reducible to matter, and this is coherent with our intuition. (I'll add details in second comment) What I don't like about modern Western theology is that they have popularized the idea of "spiritual" with flying imaginary beings... I don't agree with that... you don't have to apply physical properties to non physical standards like intelligence, or justice, or logic, or truth... So, why assume that there is nothing more than the physical universe... if our most basic faculty to know the universe might not be material... What if the popular definition of "supernatural" is wrong? and what if the "supernatural" is the ability to access to the objective sphere of reality... such as logic and truth. And if you think about it, this is exactly what separates us from other species and makes us human... so, from my point of view, and being honest with myself, I cannot assume that I am not aware of myself and that I'm nothing more than atoms.

[@ynzmadeleine]

@@guyjosephs5654 First, the hard problem of consciousness is just a problem for naturalism. This is where neuroscience has carried out important and significant studies that show it is impossible to force someone to act voluntarily only from physical stimulations, this means we can’t stimulate the will (Wilder Penfield, Mystery of the Mind, pages 77-78). The visual system of the brain has been completely mapped in detail, and the conclusion was that there was no area in the brain that could be responsible for unifying perceptions, yet is what we experience (The neuronal binding problems, Jerome Feldman). We have evidence suggesting that consciousness might be not contained in the brain or let alone be reduce to brain chemistry. Studies have shown that mental force or focusing of the self has real effects on brain chemistry, this is brain plasticity: the brain changes and adapts as a result of subjective experience = consciousness and thoughts (The mind and the brain, Jeffrey Schwartz, pages 290-364). This is odd if consciousness is just and emergent property of the brain, the mind should be the result of brain chemistry and shouldn’t have any causal power over it. The self or the mind has real power that cannot be mimic with no sentience stimulation or external causes… mental personalities can cause and create real discernible changes in the brain and body. The mental personality can determinate the brain state. (Sight and blindness in the same person: Gating in the visual system, 2015), (The scientific investigation of multiple personality disorder, 1986), (Psychophysiological aspects of multiple personality disorder, 1988), (Optical differences in cases of multiple personality disorder, 1989 and 1991). The Data is there, indicating the mind is not an effect or function of the brain, but a real ontological substance that is not only irreducible, but also and active force that can change and modify the brain. Consciousness states are not the same as brain states. Our inner mental world is devoid of the physical properties of the brain, a neural pattern on the brain alone can’t be a belief, just as ink and paper are not the same as the message. Without a mind there’s no meaning on the page, they are not the same, they are just correlated. “There are both physical and non-physical features of the world”. (The Conscious mind, David Chalmers, page 124.) “The naturalist must supply the physical property of location and so must locate the place of the mind or eliminate altogether” (from metaphysics to ethics, Frank Jackson, pages 1-5) If the mind is the result of physical processes it must to be describable by physical properties. But Consciousness and Mental states lack physical properties, let alone have clear locations in the brain, yet we cannot deny such things exist, as they are the basis of all our experience. “you are aware of your conscious state, at any given moment, as a unitary whole, so we have this question for the materialist: when I am aware of a conscious complex state, what physical entity is it that is aware of the state? This question, I am convinced, does not and cannot receive a plausible answer” (the waning of materialism, page 182) On the reverse we can experience physical qualities through qualia and experience, or we can imagine in abstract thought. Conscious experience can’t be broken in half, or reduce to smaller parts. You as a mind cannot be divided, even if you lose a memory, you as a mind are still irreducible. Some individuals have part of their brain removed and they are still a person, they don’t become 80% of a person, they might lose function or abilities, but the mind is not divided. Your mind cannot be divided, but your body can, your mind is not identical to the brain. Consciousness is the basis of what we are, conscious beings, and through consciousness we experience all other things, it does not reduce to matter.

[@malvokaquila6768]

This was a fantastic debate best I've seen.

[@invasivesurgery4595]

Well done Frank. This debate was very good and theism is much more logical than naturalism/materialism/atheism. God be praised.

[@nicholaswheeler507]

I disagree with Lowder on a few things but I appreciate his professionalism without the rhetoric.

[@Adi-do2rq]

I think this was a great debate overall. Lowder didnt come from an emotional side and came in with facts and it felt like it wasnt very polemic. As a christian I personally would like to delve deeper into some of the things lowder said in response to stealing from God and get to understand their perspective. Thank you frank for uploading this and praise the lord!

[@JNich-yc6cc]

Very good tempered debate on a serious issue respect to both

[@jakemarfoglia]

Good debate. Very respectful and generous to each side. That being said, Lowder did dodge a lot of questions.

[@JM-ot8ux]

Turek doesn't debate. He preaches. He really loves that phrase _moist robot,_ it must have some pervy thrill for him.

[@ENC98TV]

That Monte Python reference by Frank was epic.

[@Shadow-xm5uh]

Really honest and sensible debate. I don't think Lauder presented to Franks levels, but it was refreshing to watch without aggression.

[@4ndytrout46]

If by "Frank's levels" you mean strawmen and incredulity then I agree.

[@alexisgonzalez4736]

is there a place that we can download Jeffery Lowders slides to really study the arguments?

[@JetnorMartika]

It's hard to keep up with Mr. Lowder.

[@IBenZik]

BS is not logic.

[@ynzmadeleine]

@@IBenZik exactly!

[@sinatra222]

Turek got completely annihilated in this debate.

[@davezima4167]

Great debate. Nice to hear evidence and arguments from Dr. Lowder who I believe may be an agnostic. The human brain is divided into two sides and almost all humans think this way. Logically, it is not two choices - naturalism vs theism. Why not both or neither?

[@richardrahl1001]

Does anyone know if Mr. Lowder’s arguments are made in a book or a website categorizing all of the assertions and arguments? Perhaps with logical and coherent reasoning with it? I’ve tried to write down each argument, the assertions, the platitudes, and the fallacies, which has taken perhaps 2 hours so far. So much of... both sides to be fair... aren’t logically reasoned out, but stated. I know they don’t have time.

[@williammagsambol2143]

Frank is so charismatic and funny. Always knows how to win over the audience.

[@derrickevansjr3564]

But that will never help him win over the hearts unless what he saying is true

[@SuperEdge67]

@@derrickevansjr3564 Which it isn’t.

[@derrickevansjr3564]

@@SuperEdge67 come on stop. The Bible is so truth

[@SuperEdge67]

@@derrickevansjr3564 The Bible is 2000 year book of fairytales.

[@johnaajohni2129]

@@SuperEdge67it is

[@Matthew_Holton]

In explaining reality, philosophical naturalism, otherwise known as the scientific method has the enormous advantage of not only having a spectacular track record of producing results it is also self correcting (those two facts are obviously related). Theism has the disadvantage of never producing any results at all except the restatement of dogma in the face of evidence to the contrary and being unable to self-correct, except in the occassional events in history when new religions absorb ideas from other religions or other sources and create new religious ideas, a process that has always happened without any reference to the real world and actual evidence.

[@iconsworld9]

This is a very good debate.

[@funnyboyy69]

I really like this Jeffrey guy. He didn’t duck and dodge questions, he answered them directly and intelligently. Def the best frank vs atheist arguement yet.. both respectful men.

[@joeturner9219]

He didn't duck them or dodge them but from what I could gather, he basically didn't know about the morality part.

[@TheLawRival]

I like when Frank brings his cleaning supplies, especially the mop.

[@paulawad9585]

Dr. Turek is the best at exposing the absurdity of atheism

[@Simon-Burns592]

How is not being convinced that a god exists absurd ?

[@IBenZik]

@@Simon-Burns592 It's not absurd it's sad. You put your trust in that ancient band "Blind Faith" or we can go with Stairway to Heaven or Highway to hell.

[@IBenZik]

@gazlo235 That's your opinion too.

[@maow9240]

@gazlo235 deja is actually right. Its not a strawman at all. Most atheist i speak with when asked would they follow God if God was proven to them and 97% of the time they will say no and when asked why they typically just complain about things they dont understand in the bible so yes they dont want God so they arent going to see God. no good person is going to force themself on someone if they dont want them in their life and God is good so he doesnt waste any time giving someone who doesnt want Him to begin with any evidence. Would you follow God if you found Him to be true?

[@maow9240]

@gazlo235 why would you?

[@CCiPencil]

Mr Lowder is awesome! I think he did a good job defending atheism. The other atheist apologetics should take notes

[@Toasted_Buttons]

If anybody knows how to get this to frank's attention, please help me do so, the captions options need to be applied to this video, sometimes they get to talking too fast and emotionally and i miss what theyre saying and captions can help with that when im back tracking

[@bobpolo2964]

"I don't think the universe did come out of nothing, I don't think the universe came from anywhere."

[@jonasa.3040]

That is actually insane

[@MichaelG485]

@@jonasa.3040 Why is that "insane"? Also, just because we don't know how the universe came to be yet, doesn't mean a god created it. We thought that lightning came from a god until we understood better. There are new scientific discoveries happening all the time. It's not "insane" to believe that we will some day understand the origins of the universe.

[@poisonfortheweak]

@@MichaelG485 So when you say we will find out the origin of the universe- that implies that it “originated”, e.g. that it had a beginning. For something to have a beginning, it had to begin- which means it had to be created or formed. An inception. An impetus. That begs the first cause argument- what created it... or how was it created? Your other option is that the universe is eternal; that it did not have a beginning and has always existed. That doesn’t much make sense in a universe that relies on time to explain itself. In a (temporally) infinite universe, the concept of time wouldn’t even exist and time wouldn’t make sense without a beginning or end. Do you understand? Let me simplify. If “today” didn’t have a beginning or end, there would be no such thing as yesterday or tomorrow. It would always be “today”. So there’s no such thing as last year, next year- or this year, for that matter. Time would never pass because you would be stuck in the eternal now. You could never divide or define “time” since you cannot divide an infinite set (time). If you cannot divide something from something else... then how could you define it? If everything was “water”... then nothing would be “not water”, right? So if you don’t have “not water”... then how could you know what water was to begin with? Contrast cannot exist without definition and vice versa. They’re synonymous. Second to that, if the universe was infinite and eternal (always was and will be) then that goes against what all of science shows. So by assuming that you’re invalidating science. And you may go to another argument that could say well the universe did have a start, but it possibly was not God that created it- it could be aliens. It could be a supercomputer and we’re living in the matrix. Then? Well what created the aliens that created us? What created the matrix that we live in? And if more aliens created the aliens that created us... well what created those aliens? It’s an infinitely regressive question- and it’s the “uncaused first cause” Frank refers to. At some point you either have to admit that there is an infinite Creator (first cause) that is outside of time and space... or you have to suppose that the universe is infinite without a beginning or end- which again- throws science and everything we’ve learned so far out the window and nullifies the foundation of physics. To me, atheism is far more foolish than theism.

[@MichaelG485]

@@poisonfortheweak You are assuming that we understand how time works, which we don't. We know that perceived time changes for different observers under different conditions. Those conditions involved speed, mass and who knows what else. We've only begun to scratch the surface on our understanding of how time works. As sentient beings, we are eternally stuck in the 'now'. We can remember the past and think about the future, but ultimately we only perceive the now. I don't rule out the possibility that there was a 'creator', but it's not any of the man made gods.

[@tieskedh]

​@@MichaelG485 ..., 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 Just counted down from the beginning. I claim that everything after the 0 can only happen if there was a beginning.

[@genac74]

The problem with the analogy of the colored beans is that the more information we have the more we understand how complex the universe is. Think about the human body.

[@m3ow21]

can you explain further for me?

[@clayterickson]

When Frank Turek uses the if the universe was ruler metaphor, does anyone know where or who he got that from?

[@alexwilli]

Fantastic debate by both participants. Both parties represented their positions well and mostly avoided the typical misrepresentation of the other side. The one exception came at 2:10:55. Anyone who thinks *many* of Jeff’s arguments boil down to complaints about how God is running the universe, missed most of what Jeff actually said.

[@ISkeptic649]

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist." The title indicates that the author doesn't know what faith means or what atheism means. Oh dear.

[@HopeandI]

Why does Athiest, AA, and occult pagans groups have the same logo?

[@rebekahosborne4710]

Good job louder! Following rules of logic.

[@jimcrosby3944]

I think Mr. Lowder has some great arguments he just comes off as so robotic. He paks so many arguments into a sentence I need to analyze everything before I can arrive at questions or agreement.

[@backatit4757]

Moist robut 🤖

[@greatunwashed9116]

Frank Turek is certainly one of the more ridiculous apologists out there and that's up against some stiff competition.

[@derrickevansjr3564]

How?

[@isidoreaerys8745]

@@derrickevansjr3564 he makes a lot of assumptions. Such as morality being impossible without god. Thinking being impossible without god. While providing no justification for why we should believe that. He simply says it to audiences that already believe it. Yeah if you assume everything requires god then of course you’re going to conclude that the world is theistic. Won’t persuade anyone though.

[@mackdmara]

I liked this debate due to civility. On that point this was great. They do talk right past each other often though. I will skip anything on Frank. You are here, you probably know everything I would say about him. So, I will focus on the opposing side. He has a good deal of off logic given. The Jellybeans is a good example. He sets it up as that *you know* which jar has more of a kind of bean. What he is describing is our reality, not the two sides of the issue in the analogy. We have *no clue* how many of either jellybean exists in the real jar. Thus, if I pull only the blue for an extended period of time, all I can conclude is that there is blue answers. If there is a finite number of answers & the real jar has more red than blue, as time goes on I *MUST* find more red. Even if I pull all the blues first. He never goes into if that is the case. Still, it is not applicable. The reason is, if all I have is Blue, I conclude blue, even if it is wrong. I would have to assume it the truth though. Of course, I don't know how many are blue or red. All I know is my sample in reality. Thus, his idea only works if you knew the percentage of red to blue before hand. It assumes the consequent. That is simply not the case. You must therefore go with the current samples suggested out come. It does not imply a favor to either side, unless your sample does directly, & as I said, he never dealt directly with that. He does this on a number of topics. Maybe his written work is better & he is a bad debater. That was why I found this debate a bit empty. It had such a broad scope, that nothing was clearly given. Still, arguing nature exists, therefore there is only nature, does not work. I think Frank had the more cogent answer.

[@Joshcaldwell24]

I agree. What are your thoughts in total of frank?

[@OctMEAG]

Wow! This is the first atheist who really debates instead of just making fun of the Bible or complaining about the problem of evil. He did a good job.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

I agree and disagree with you. Firstly, Jeffery Jay Lowder is by far the best atheist debater there is. If you enjoyed this debate, I would also highly recommend watching his debate with Phil Fernandes and you will see how good he actually is. You will also realize why William Lane Craig has been ducking a debate with Lowder since the late 1990s. Also, I disagree with your comment about being the first atheist who debates instead of just making fun of the Bible. I can think of several atheist debates where I thought they did the complete opposite and won the debate including: Jeff Lowder vs. Frank Turek, Jeff Lowder vs. Phil Fernandes, Paul Draper vs. William Lane Craig, Keith Parsons vs. William Lane Craig, and Austin Dacy vs. William Lane Craig.

[@hwd71]

How does a mind flow from naturalism being true? What do you mean by mind? Where is it located? How do you detect it? With what instrument do you use to measure it? Isn't that a religious term? What religion are you promoting?

[@theazure4171]

Lol. If a person put his hand in a jar containing 90/10 red and blue jellybeans and pulled a red one out....that means its more likely that an Intelligent Mind with a hand exists pulling the jellybeans out.

[@tomwinchester55]

Lol....

[@uke7084]

I wish Frank hadn't quoted so many atheists. If Jeffery had quoted a bunch of theists it would have distracted from Frank's actual stance, since theists all have different backgrounds and conclusions. There is nothing to prove that Jeffery would agree with the atheists quoted. Just like I don't want to be treated as if I agree with every theist for being a disciple of Jesus Christ, I assume any atheist would not want me to lump them in with every other atheistic view.

[@derrickevansjr3564]

But when you believe in God in anyway your thrown in that box

[@serversideissues4249]

Finally someone who doesn't just attack religion, mock God and gives actual valid arguments...

[@rainegoldberg9376]

Great debate, excellent points made by Jeffrey, however, theism wins hands down hence why my faith in God hasn’t changed tho. Thank you Dr Frank 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@ProjectGoOD]

When someone is right, they can directly answer the question. Lowder couldnt.. Talk about avoiding.. Turek on the other hand... Spot-on..

[@PGBurgess]

why is that... isn't it more logical to assume that to the very difficult, big questions on life and the universe; that we wouldn't have all the clear and direct answers. I am very suspicious of anyone who claims to have absolute clear answers on these topics..

[@disrupt94]

that just proves Turek believes he is right, not that he is right

[@MtZionMediaPro]

Even understanding everything said, Lowder is just hard to listen to 🥴

[@jerryp6001]

I'm unfamiliar with lowder. Heard the name. Never seen or heard him. Yeah...on first pass...little difficult to comprehend without effort. I like harris...but I tune harris out almost instantly. His content may be good...but I never last long enough to get to it

[@Jacob-ls2fv]

I got to say I respect jeffrey the most out off all of them he put up a clear debate 😇🙏🏻🛐 frank still took it tho

[@patprr1756]

Though.

[@jeffh58]

I enjoyed this debate. I've always enjoyed watching Dr. Frank Turek and his mentor Dr. Norman Geisler. I thought Jeffrey Lowder was pleasant and knowledgeable. I'm a Christian who studies the Bible, a book like no other. When I witness to unbelievers, I suggest that they read the Bible objectively and ask God(who they don't believe in) to reveal himself if it's true. When they earnestly seek God, they will find him. Many atheists don't believe because of miracles. I've seen miracles happen and experienced them personally. I'm a born-again Christian, and I know God exists. You have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I wasn't always like this; this has changed my life, and it can change yours too. I'm not trying to put anyone down or offend them but trying to help them. I care for all human beings and want them to experience what I have.

[@silverpondl]

It seems Lowder tries to use the long list he has in his blog of people he knows that agrees with him to use against Frank in the cross examination. Frank kind of stepped back because he realized he hasn't looked at all of the list that was presented, but in all honesty Lowder didn't deal with the concept on hand. Rather he just listed a bunch of people's writing which is pretty sad as a back-up on the point that he was trying to push. However, I do have to give credit to Lowder because he did admit that theism has some benefits rather than most of atheists who are arrogant and just not worth having a conversation. If people are honest and rational they can see that Atheism cannot stand on its on, and that is why atheists cannot beat any legitimate theist in a debate no matter how hard they try.

[@RYANkMCCARTHY]

Can you give an example of Jeff using people strictly from the Secular Outpost to back up his points? If you are criticizing him for appealing to the writings of others, then both participants would be disqualified from making pretty much any argument which uses premises that depend on knowledge not known to the average person. Do you find a particular weakness in Jeff's case for naturalism?

[@silverpondl]

Did I say Jeff used strictly people from Secular post? I just said that he just uses the list as a supportive fact for his argument. I mean I could do that with a search of a button and find whole bunch of people's writing and just list them and say that is my supportive reason for my claim. The fact is you could do that with anything. He does not deal with the content and just lists. I mean if you are going to list, at least show it proportional to the percentage of scholars that are out there to show a certain percentage or something of that sort. Just listing people that are going to agree with you is weak unless those are prominent scholars that are renowned in the field. Therefore the best way to deal with differences of ideas are to reason logically instead of listing various random people that just agrees with you. *Do you find a particular weakness in Jeff's case for naturalism?* Of course? How Jeff does not even closely answer some of the direct question of Frank is a good example. He says some days I'm this some days I am that. Its a typical dodge from atheists. Like I said in the previous post that Jeff guy seems somewhat better than most atheists in terms of admitting some flaws out of many that exists in the view of naturalism but in the end, Naturalism fails because it is self-refuting as Frank and many other well-known debaters like William Lane Craig have said. I find it hard to believe that people actually believe in Naturalism when there are so many contradictions and flaws just even on the surface level.

[@RYANkMCCARTHY]

Anthony Lim With respect to scholars, you might be unfamiliar with the relevant fields but Jeff does cite renowned scholars from various fields. Within the philosophy of religion, Jeff cites John Schellenberg and Paul Draper, both prominent members of their field. Even theist philosophers of religion would say Schellenberg and Draper are at the top of their respected games. Within science, Sean Carroll is also a prominent member of his field. Can you give examples of failures within Jeff's case for naturalism, and provide examples of how Naturalism (As defined by Jeff and Paul Draper) is self refuting? Remember that for any proposition P, if P is self refuting then the set of logical implications of P forms an inconsistent set. The latter part of the definition is important. We can derive a contradiction by assuming a proposition is true and showing it forms an inconsistent set when an actual fact of the world is considered. But that doesn't make a proposition self refuting. There being no such things as atoms is false, but not self refuting. In order for a proposition such as naturalism to be self refuting, it must be the case that naturalism has a set of logical implications which is inconsistent.

[@humblejo130]

Anthony Lim Lowder's argument is really "I do not know if either one of them exists. But one thing I do know, Naturalism is real". that's why he failed miserably to defend himself. No atheist has reasonable proof that what they believe is right. Really (as an atheist once told me) "all that an atheist is is someone who is in the middle of the sides, only with the obligation of proving that we don't know if there is a God or if there isn't. it's just better to be neutral" and I might as well add, they just say there is no God to give what they say authority; being that in the neutral view there is no authority. and they want authority because of how offended and annoyed they feel about how powerful the influence of the Christian view is. so it's funny that you said that. because it's true

[@Secular_Outpost]

+humblejo130 Please provide evidence to back up your claim: "Lowder's argument is really 'I do not know if either one of them exists. [And specify what 'one of them' refers to.] But one thing I do know, Naturalism is real."

[@mikejohn5832]

I think Lowder had a great opening speech, but he wasted the cross examination on the damn jellybean example instead of asking real questions. Kinda disappointed in him for that.

[@humblejo130]

Dirk Diggler as long as the is ANYONE going against the belief of God, if you are on the side to disprove him, you will always be disappointed. just like the devils in hell, whenever a demon fails, another demon thinks it can do better and fails and it's like a cycle of failure.

[@genac74]

Mike John I don't think Mr Lowder offered up anything. He had no answer for a personal first cause. No answer for Justice. No answer for objective truth.

[@duaneraymond7894]

@@genac74 Tottally Agree

[@methodicl2673]

Yes just like a politician who can talk for an hour and not say a damn thing.

[@Detson404]

@@genac74 The first cause is currently unknown, if it exists. You can call that “god” but that doesn’t mean the first cause demands you cut off your foreskin. Justice and morality are human creations. Done.

[@codefool3022]

This is a good debate, mostly because Mr. Lowder isn't another angry atheist that ends up yelling at the audience.

[@brynertoma]

I have a lot of respect for the demand of Jeffrey. Although his arguments weren’t really arguments, his behaviour and maturity and preparedness was welcomed. I think he would be unstoppable if he actually believed in the truth and was defending the faith. Christians, atheists and everyone in between, take note on what a respectable conversation looks like. Well done gentlemen.

[@guyjosephs5654]

Indeed. I hate to say it but I can almost count on one hand the number of times I’ve had a civilized conversation here about various topics. It’s shocking almost how people have forgotten how to do that.

[@loganleatherman7647]

Even Frank Turek here, as part of the very first thing he says, is that Jeffrey Lowder came with real arguments. So what are you talking about? This is just disingenuous

[@4ndytrout46]

His arguments weren't really arguments? Are you kidding me? All Frank said the whole time is "that sounds crazy to me so it can't be true."

[@antoniopratt1893]

​@@4ndytrout46yes, the universe existing just because is a crazy statement.

[@4ndytrout46]

@@antoniopratt1893 Why?