I know that these forums are usually for announcements, discussions of research findings, and even just input on a specific topic. Still, I was also thinking, because we have SO MANY content creators in here, including Apollos, IP, Than, and of course Tim. I wanted to ask some questions about those who have experience doing live calls (specifically from platforms like TikTok, and YouTube). 1. How do you know when you are ready? This is something I think about all the time when wanting to start going live on TikTok and other platforms: I have the means and the access; I just don't know if I am ready for "the smoke". I talk in Discord chatrooms all the time about complex topics and feel confident with most people whom I encounter there, but how do I know when I am ready for live? 2. How should you react when you don't know something (and an important clarifier), and the guest is trying to make you feel not qualified for knowing something? Not knowing something and just admitting it, and just ending that portion of the conversation, is one thing, because that's just humility. It's a complete other thing when you have "influence," and you are live, and a guest is making you look as if you are "cooked," "baked," or not qualified just for knowledge gapping you. This isn't a problem for me, because I know this is just untrue, but for an audience that has been primed to be very reactionary to this type of content, it might be a different story. How should I respond when that accusation is made? That's basically it lol. Any feedback or thoughts from anyone will be much appreciated!

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 👇🏽