This past Sunday, I taught the ontological argument! It was pretty cool trying to teach the argument itself, mock objections, and conclude with how we need to use arguments as Christians like a web that holds things together, or as Craig/Moreland put it, chain mail that is interwoven; not like a stack of arguments that necessarily depend on each other. It was super dope seeing them all say the argument in their own words and also have them try at some of the objections (listen in the docs). A takeaway I have is not to underestimate these children. As suggested in the docs, I taught them what possibility means and possible worlds according to philosophy as taught in Craig/Moreland and gave them examples that could make sense to show the difference between possibility and imagination. They also learned about Occam’s Razor when handling an objection, believe it or not. Now, granted, I don’t think I exactly defined it for them so there’s room for growth on my part, but overall, I pray it was a successful class. Now my class has 3 arguments they can give to backup their basic belief that there is a God: Cosmological Argument, Kalam, and the Ontological Argument. They’ve written them down and my hope is that they’ll get the chance to practice them. Feel free to steal these and lmk how it goes for any other teachers. Lmk if there’s feedback on these few things: - As a teacher, if I gave you this lesson, could you follow it and teach it? - is the lesson fun? Or could there be some physical element that really hits all learning styles? - Is it too much, too little, or inaccurate? Thanks fam!

On our main IP channel I will be having a video coming out soon on the Shema. Specifically, muslims, jews, unitarians, etc. in general like to cherry pick deut. 6:4 as an anti-Trinitarian argument. They'll say things like "The Shema clearly states the Lord is ONE not THREE". In the spirit the video coming out soon. I wanted to see what you guys think of this objection. How would you about this?

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.

So me and my homie yesterday were having a really good conversation about the differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. For context, he is Orthodox. While having some of our disagreements, he always pivoted back to a central argument he would use. His argument was that the reason Orthodoxy has to be true is because Orthodoxy can trace its lineage directly to the Apostles. In essence, we know what we speak is the truth because we can trace our teaching to what the Apostles taught who were closest to Jesus. If we are to trust anyone, it would be the apostles who were closest to him; and the church they built is modern day Orthodoxy. He also discredited Martin Luther by in essence saying that we shouldn't take one man's side on the interpretation of the gospel, especially when the Orthodox church has been unified for 1500 years before him. How could we have been wrong for 1500 years and then he shows up and fixes it was his take more or less. What would be some rebuttals you would use to counter that point?

I came across a video on TikTok that formulated the problem of evil as follows: P1. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, then he would never allow evil. P2. Evil does exist. C. Therefore, this kind of God does not exist. I am going to attempt to refute P1 using possible worlds semantics and would love feedback. Thanks! --- I can frame P1 in this argument as follows: there is no possible world in which an omni-properties God would ever allow evil. Following after @Tim Howard 's recommended framework for handling arguments, I see three ambiguous terms. They are: 1. The omni-properties (what, exactly, is meant by omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent) 2. What do we mean exactly by "God"? 3. What is meant when we say "evil"? For the sake of this post, assuming I have defined with my opponent the terms, moving forward with false premises, I do think there is a false premise in P1; for, if it can be shown that God can exist in any possible world that also has evil, then that would be the negation of P1 following what I've learned in Craig/Moreland. If that is the case, then the counter is this: there is some possible world where an omni-properties God exists and evil also exists. To back that claim, I was thinking of using probability in regard to the historicity of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. If I can show that there is a possible world (to be clear, meaning a world that can actually exist, but isn't the actual world) that a religion which holds Jesus of Nazareth to have been risen from the dead is true, then that would entail an omni-properties God exists in that possible world that also has evil (namely, that Jesus died through crucifixion and God rose him from the dead). Which would then mean that there is some possible world where God exists and evil also exists, which is once again a negation of P1. Once again, I can show this can be the case by simply appealing to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth to my opponent. Specifically, if one can show that Jesus was not a historical person, then the religions that hold he is are less likely to be true (and may even prove them to be false). Therefore, the opposite is true, namely, that if he was a historical person then that would increase the likelihood of these religions that hold him as a historical person as doctrine, which of course entails that a God exists and the evil of the crucifixion also exists.