Paul Draper's Case for Naturalism

In his 1997 debate with William Lane Craig, Paul Draper considers seven lines of evidence and asks if they are more likely on theism or on naturalism. He argues that the meager moral fruits of theism, mind-brain dependence, evolution, the biological roles of pain and pleasure, tragedies, divine silence during tragedies, and religious confusion are not what we would expect to find if theism were true. The world looks about as one would expect it to look if God did not exist.

Transcript https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.co...

Listen to and review Counter Apologetics: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...

Listen to Walden Pod: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...

Support the podcast at Patreon.com/counter

Follow on Twitter @waldenpod

J.J. Lowder's summary and review of the debate: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secular...

The full debate:    • William Lane Craig vs Paul Draper | "...  

/ timestamps /

00:00 Introduction

02:30 Naturalism & F-inductive arguments

04:48 The meager moral fruits of theism

09:23 Mind-brain dependence

15:42 Evolution

18:50 The biological role of pain and pleasure

21:20 Tragedies & divine silence during tragedies

26:24 Religious discord

30:53 Summary

32:10 goodbye