Hey everyone, my name is Matt, and I'm the Assistant Director of an apologetics ministry called Inspiring Philosophy. We want to formally announce that Transcending Answers Academy will be transitioning into Inspiring Philosophy Academy! The Inspiring Philosophy Team has partnered with Tim and this program to be the OFFICIAL Inspiring Philosophy Training Course for apologetics, philosophy, theology, and even social media training for those of you looking to become online apologists as well. Stay tuned for: NEW courses, world class scholars joining our group calls, MORE exclusive course content, social media training, and MUCH MUCH more! This will take effect immediately and you will see new features roll out in the coming months. Also, another house keeping announcement: GROUP CALLS will now be Wednesday 6-pm PST and Saturdays 10am-12pm PST. More details to come on that soon. For any and all questions about the academy moving forward, comment on this post or feel free to email: Matt@inspiringphilosophy.com and I'll respond as soon as I am able

I recently had a thought about the way a lot of naturalists justify their beliefs. Primarily they use physics to explain away all of the issues with naturalism. The implicit appeal here is that since their model is (debatably) coherent then it must be true. Someone like Krauss, Hawking, or Dr. Blitz all make appeals to obscure and post hoc physics models to come to their conclusions to explain the universe without God. This could also be an unspoken use of coherentist justification, but the appeals are about how things are not what we know.

To whomever has read this, I'm curious to know what Barker's position is. I'm on ch. 10, and so far it seems that her data represents YHWH as multiple deities in the OT times which some Israelites believed in. The Deutoronomists came later to correct tradition which is where we now have our Masoretic and LXX texts describing YHWH as only one being, but before texts may have read differently. I wonder if I am presenting her data/position correctly. It's a fascinating read! Definitely still contemplating the subject and plan to read much more! It's great to read about how the model of the Trinity isn't so farfetched at all and is backed by loads of evidence in terms of understanding one God in multiple persons, or in Barker's case, she says "deities" or beings. Not sure if she is Christian or not, but a good read. I am posting because I am curious if I presented her case correctly or not. If not, please help me understand her main points so I can continue reading with clarity and outside the fog. If you want to read this yourself, check out this PDF I found online. Also, here's Heiser's Two Power's in Heaven website where other books remain for your reading pleasure and mine.

See you all tonight 🔥🔥 Excited to go over our next session on religious epistemology. Come prepared to: - share your notes - Ask your questions - To think hard See you then!

We talk a lot about making sure our philosophical foundations are set. I found this awesome resource for all things historical apologetics which would be a great opportunity for all of you to apply you’ve learned to the historical data. Here’s an extremely helpful database endorsed by apologists and scholars I trust: https://historicalapologetics.org/ Let us know what you think.