With the recent restructuring, the path to getting the most out of this community is clearer than ever. Here’s how to make it work for you: Rewatch live recordings. Go back through past group calls and lectures 2–3 times. Repetition is where the lessons actually stick. Use the 2-hour group calls intentionally. Make it a habit to bring every knowledge gap you have into these calls and get them addressed in real time. That’s what they’re built for. Revisit older posts and take notes. The archives are full of insights. Treat them like a library, not a feed. DM me directly. If you need specific advice, resources, or guidance tailored to where you’re at, my inbox is open. Show up to study groups. Consistent attendance accelerates progress in ways solo work can’t replicate. Link with other members. Put your heads together, work through challenges collaboratively, and learn from each other’s perspectives. At the end of the day, this is an input-output game. You’ll get out exactly what you’re willing to put in. I’ve made sure the infrastructure is tight enough that the only thing left is pure accountability on your end.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Let’s grow together 💪🏽🔥

One of my favorite debates EVER on arguments for God (specifically the contingency argument) is Rob Koons vs Graham Oppy. If you want to see what’s it like in real-time to engage and trade frameworks of good reasoning across worldview lines at the highest level, this debate features it like I’ve yet to see elsewhere. This should give you a good idea at what I’m aiming to make all you competent in inside the group training sessions. Pay attention to the nuances and you’ll be blown away.

I asked IA to formulate the strongest possible version of the Invisible Gardener objetion against christianity and also the strongest possible response. Comment you toughts Strongest objection form (reformulated for maximal philosophical force) The argument is best cast as a parsimony-based abductive or Bayesian objection, drawing on standard criteria of theory choice in philosophy of science and analytic epistemology (e.g., simplicity, conservatism, and minimal mutilation of background knowledge). Here is its strongest version: 1. Ceteris paribus, among competing comprehensive worldviews, the one with the highest posterior probability is the one that requires the fewest ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses, reinterpretations, or “harmonization adjustments” to accommodate the total relevant data (especially empirical data from the mature natural sciences and rigorous historical-critical scholarship). This follows from the epistemic virtues of simplicity (fewer independent posits or patches) and explanatory coherence: theories that must repeatedly gerrymander their core claims to fit new data become degenerative (in Lakatosian terms) or have lower likelihood relative to their priors. 2. Orthodox Christianity (Trinitarian theism + Incarnation, atonement, resurrection, biblical inspiration/inerrancy, and traditional doctrines of creation and providence) requires a substantial number of such ad hoc adjustments to accommodate (a) the established findings of modern science (e.g., evolutionary biology and the deep time of cosmology, neuroscience of mind, absence of young-earth or global-flood geology) and (b) historical scholarship (e.g., critical methods showing layers of redaction in the Pentateuch, limited extra-biblical corroboration for some patriarchal/Exodus narratives, genre analysis of Genesis 1–11, and the need for non-literal or limited-inerrancy readings of Scripture). These adjustments include: restricting inerrancy to “faith and morals” rather than history/science; adopting theistic evolution with direct creation of the soul; reinterpreting “days” of Genesis or treating early chapters as theological rather than historical narrative; positing miraculous interventions that appear to suspend or override secondary causes; and limiting biblical historicity claims in light of archaeology. 3. Therefore, Christianity is probably false (or, more modestly, has significantly lower posterior probability than naturalistic rivals or less doctrinally specific theisms that fit the same data with fewer patches).

Disclaimers: 1) I am very new to philosophy and this form of thinking so be patient with my lack of understanding if this seems like a trivial problem to you lol 2) I know we more so discuss proving the existence of God and the reliability of scripture but I though this would be interesting. I have recently been trying to wrap my head around the U in the Calvinistic TULIP analogy, which stands for Unconditional Election. The idea, in brief, is that God in essence "chooses" those who will be saved. Since we are dead in our sins, we are unable to generate a response towards salvation so God in eternity past chooses those who will be saved. Some Calvinists would go as far as to say that Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice is only for the elect. That Jesus did not indeed come to save all but rather just those elected to salvation. I don't know why but this just does not compute for me. Doesn't the very idea of God "choosing" those who will be saved, regardless of prior knowledge of faith as most calvinists would point out, disregard human free will. Is it possible for those two things to co-exist at all to begin with, possibly that we are unable in our limited capacity to understand that inner working. I also wondered if this undermines the character of an all loving god if he chooses who will and will not respond to the message of the gospel. Thinking about how God wants all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), doesn't this go against that commonly held belief as well? Just posing questions because I dont know how many hold this belief despite me feeling like it is simply antithetical to the message of the gospel. Any thoughts would be appreciated

Hey all! Just wanted to say I'm looking forward to being active here. If you love anime (JJK is popping off!!! Big One Piece fan, too) or music (I produce/write), or if you love writing novels/manga/books (writing a manga and one novel currently), then down to chock it up with you!