First off.. I would like to thank everyone here for what they do and their overwhelming contribution to the many arguments for the belief in God, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What Inspiring Philosophy does well is welcome all faiths and ideas to have a serious dialogue that leads us further to seeking the truth.. Now by no means am I at the stage of my theological journey where I can give you a decade of church history, arguments for Gods existence, right off the top of my head. I am still learning. But something new that I have truly come to face is something more important than any argument for Gods existence, or Atheism, but my own personal salvation.. For all my life I have shut off any denominational bickering and thought that we needed to be more united than set apart as a body of christ, and I think most would agree with that statement. However.. I cannot ignore this true problem that I believe every Christian needs to answer. If Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one gets to the father but through him, is it not of utmost importance, and just, that he would make his message clear for salvation, for ALL generations to understand, and there be NO disagreement within the church body on literally the most important question of christianity, "How am I saved"? Now the last thing I need to hear is, "well it's very clear, Jesus paid for all your sins and there is nothing more that you need to do", or, "well it's very clear, we receive salvation but it's with repetitive actions that you keep it"... What I am trying to say is that there is disagreement on not something minuscule, but VERY important. And instead of focusing on that issue, I feel like the discourse just tends to lead too, "well MAYBE your saved but only God knows" or "Just join the true church and you will be fine". Why can't we just all be right? This makes me think, I can never fully understand the truth because one person studies for decades and is a Protestant Christian, and the other a Catholic Christian, both claiming truth, both with different ideas on salvation.

Hey I wanted throw this one at y’all. Has anyone really looked into evidential Near Death Experiences as clear evidence for the Soul, Immaterial reality of the biblical worldview. I’ve only seen YouTube videos discussions, and interviews of experiences but also form mainstream Christian NDE proponents like Garry Habermas, John Burke, Lee Strobel and I’m not saying it’s not good the legit documented testimonies are absolutely compelling to me and for me hold to the same level of evidential quality as miracles. But I was wondering if Tim or Than have done some work on it already, If not maybe it’s a good idea for the future? I think it would be pretty good. But also anyone know any really good quality scores to look into the evidence of the matter, IK IP made a video about it like 10 Years ago but is till need to check it out

It’s that time again 🔥 A friend of IP, Dr. Sy Garte, will be joining us on September 28 to discuss his work on biology, design, and how these subjects relate to the Christian worldview. Sy is a retired biochemist with a wealth of wisdom and a thoughtful, nuanced perspective. During the call, you’ll have the opportunity to ask questions and receive on-the-fly feedback from Sy about what careful thinking on these topics looks like. You won’t want to miss this one. You can find the event on the calendar. See you there!

If you explore the internet long enough, you'll encounter what's known as the divine psychology problem or objection. The basic idea is that for God to serve as an explanation for anything, we need to make claims about God's psychological state concerning that thing. This is seen as a problem for two main reasons: 1. Lack of Knowledge: We do not have access to the unique and specific thoughts and desires of God. If we say, "God explains cosmic fine-tuning," what we really mean is, "God wanted to create a fine-tuned universe for life." However, how do we *know* that's what God was really thinking or desiring? Ultimately, we lack access to such specific information. If we do not have this access, we cannot invoke God as an explanation, since we must cite an intention to explain anything on theism. This results in God not being a valid explanation. 2. Arbitrariness: If we disregard the need for prior knowledge of God's intentions, we encounter the arbitrariness problem. Suppose we say, "God just wanted to create a life-permitting universe," and someone asks, "Why does God desire to create a life-permitting universe with these specific laws instead of some other set of laws, or a universe without the need for fine-tuning?" This forces us to provide a further explanation as to why we think God prefers fine-tuning over other possible realities. If we can't answer this contrastive question, then God's choices appear arbitrary and thus non-rational, which contradicts His omniscience. So, how do we address this? First, I believe this objection is overreaching and exaggerated. It assumes that God's psychology functions similarly to human psychology, which introduces a flawed anthropomorphism. God is fundamentally unlike creatures in relevant ways. One key distinction between God and humans is in His motivations. God has the simplest motivational framework possible. He is motivated by one thing and one thing only: reasons. Because God is omniscient, He always accurately perceives the reasons for believing or not believing something. Additionally, because He is omnipotent, nothing external or non-rational can compel Him to act against His will. As a result, God is motivated solely by internal, rational factors.