If you’ve been on the internet for any significant period of time, you’ve come across creators, comments, and debates where someone throws around the phrase “that’s a bad answer” or “that doesn’t answer the problem.” But for whatever reason, no one has stopped to ask: what do we mean by “good answer”? This has always baffled me. If both parties (assuming good intent) desire to be as objective as possible, then why has this notion of “a good answer” not been unpacked or precisified? It seems like the most obvious and fundamental step to take. And yet, mainstream apologetics never stops to first provide clarity. Here’s what we don’t want: a good answer being one where the person receiving the answer feels satisfied. Why? Because that turns something objective into something psychological. If our goal is to track the truth, then why is our litmus test for rationality someone’s psychological state, rather than the merit of the reasons given? That is clearly not the right way to go. Ultimately, we don’t care about the psychology of answers, but the epistemology of answers. Epistemology concerns anything to do with giving reasons for a belief. In apologetics, epistemology is the cornerstone of what we do. So the question becomes: what is the right epistemology of answers? And to that, we turn to a fun little concept called “ad hocness.” You’ve probably heard this term used a lot. “That’s ad hoc!” someone declares, as though the rest of the discussion is now moot. However, there’s quite a bit to say about this concept, and it’s much more nuanced than many make it out to be. Ad hocness occurs when the explanation given to save the truth of one’s belief(s) cannot be ascertained from the principles within that person’s already-held framework. In other words: when resisting having one’s belief(s) defeated, if what’s appealed to is not already expected within their system, it’s said to be ad hoc. Now, you can already see how most who throw around the term do not use it in this rigorous of a manner. Keep note of that.

*Disclaimer, I talk about "Free will" and know the nuance of the topic, but I'm curious of what you guys think of my use of the phrase and if you would change anything about this post! So I was having this conversation with a friend of mine about why it isn't compatible for someone to be a Homosexual and still be a Christian, and when I define the term "Homosexual" I mean a declaration (or coming out as they would say) and a regular carrying out of explicit or implied sensual actions towards the opposite sex. More to define, but I don’t want to digress. Her first argument would usually go as followed: “There are numerous species within the animal kingdom that engage in homosexual behavior.” Now I can say we as Christians believe we are divinely inspired (Genesis 1:26), to derive your morals from the cruelty of nature isn’t a strong argument. Regardless of my rebuttals I'm still trapped in a sense, and this is where it gets tricky.. “Why aren’t we permitted to carry out “wrong” moral actions that nature around us seems to grant flexibility, which itself was created by a creator that deems certain actions wrong?” I wanted to ask this question at Q&A but I mostly work on Saturdays, but here is my best argument for the time being, bear with me still a work in progress and I am by no means an experienced philosopher/theologian.. God starts the process for a life habitable universe, with such life some of which possessing a distinct programming to follow a task, with granted free will, and other life (humans) having the ability to express desires outside of one's programming, and an awareness of one's decisions. Free will agents without the added awareness of one's self or actions, having a distinct purpose, but an absence of destiny (or maybe they do have a destiny, need to read more), can’t be morally responsible for the same actions of a free will agent with (1) An awareness of one's actions (2) A law given distinctly to them for a divine purpose. Let me know how I did, or what you guys come up with! :D

I am happy to announce that Transcending Answers Academy is now InspiringPhilosophy’s go to resource on the main site. For YEARS people have been asking us to have an education option. Now we do 🔥 The future is us 🤞🏽 And we’re just getting started. LETS GO

As you know, I’m super big on spending time inside the classroom modules. For each of you, you’re somewhere different along the path. So I want to audit your experience: Which module(s) were easy to understand, and which one(s) challenged your thinking, and why? Thoughts below 👇🏽

STEP 1: Download the Skool App and turn on notifications. STEP 2: Comment below on this post with the following: - Who are you, and where are you from? - What is your current role or interest in apologetics? - What do you hope to achieve as a member of this community? STEP 3: Attend the weekly live mentorship calls hosted by me or a scholar/specialist! Check the calendar for the call schedule. During these calls, you can ask questions to support your journey in building a strong and confident worldview. Missed a live session? No worries—recordings will be available within 48 hours! Please remember to follow the community rules and guidelines to keep this space positive and productive. Violators will be removed. If you have any questions, feel free to DM me.