Hey guys, First, I need to clarify that I don't think the Christian God can't coexist with "evolution". I see no issue in both claims being true at the same time. However I never understood, why God would choose/settle with a system like evolution to bring forth life; The problem I have sort of goes into the PoE: why a system that causes so much "unnecessary" suffering (please grant me the "unnecessary" for the sake of the question)? Why a system, that results in animals needing to kill & eat each in order to survive? Why didn't he create a world with evolution, that somehow doesn't result in so much unnecessary animal cruelty? I don't even necessarily think, that death is something "evil" per se (i can clarify if interested), but I still don't get why God would settle with the cruel hunter VS prey system we have...

Hey everyone, I want to ask about Giovanni Manfredi's 2022 paper on logical entropy and negative probabilities, and how it connects to David Ellerman's work on partition logic. Ellerman he showed that partition logic (the math of making distinctions) is the exact structural mirror of classical Boolean logic (subsets). I guess Manfredi then used Ellerman's logic to show that if you preserve logical entropy over time, the laws of quantum mechanics literally derive themselves. I am trying to figure out how this impacts our philosophical and theological views as Christians: 1. Materialism and Nominalism: If reality at its base is made of abstract logical distinctions (information) instead of physical stuff, does this kill materialism and nominalism? Does it point directly to Ontic Structural Realism or Idealism? 2. Time and Determinism: Because partition logic treats quantum superpositions as states of objective indefiniteness rather than hidden physical facts, does this give us a solid mathematical foundation for an A-theory of time where the future literally does not exist yet? 3. God's Nature: Classical theology like Aquinas works says God is pure actuality and totally unchangeable. But under this logical entropy framework, does it make more sense to view God as having potentiality? Could God be conceptualized as the ultimate unpartitioned state, so the absolute ocean of potentiality from which reality is carved, rather than a static "unchanging" object? 4. Christian Creation: Genesis describes creation as dividing and separating, assinging order & function (light from dark, water from land). Since this framework models reality as drawing partitions out of indefiniteness, does this fit the biblical text? Does it push us toward panentheism where God actively sustains the quantum code? 5. The Multiverse: Since Manfredi's math relies on negative probabilities, does this show that parallel branches (like in Many-Worlds) aren't actual physical clone universes, but exist strictly as mathematical unactualized(?) potentials?

Here is an interesting paper I am working on reading about the logical problem of the trinity. I was hoping if anyone else is interested in reading this https://philpapers.org/archive/BRATLP-3.pdf

A common internet trope we hear all the time is, “Well, I’m not convinced,” or “That doesn’t persuade me,” or “That doesn’t sound true to me.” And a lot of people get tripped up by this, because they think their job now is to sell the person on the truth of their position. But that already grants too much. We need to distinguish between the psychology of evidence and the epistemology of evidence. The psychology of evidence has to do with how evidence feels to you. Whether it moves you. Whether it strikes you as persuasive. Whether it produces some internal sense of certainty. But the epistemology of evidence has to do with whether the evidence actually supports the claim. Those are not the same thing. Merely reporting your psychological state might be interesting. It might tell us something about your background, your biases, your assumptions, your social environment, or your emotional resistance to a conclusion. But by itself, it has no philosophical weight. The question is not, “Am I convinced?” The question is, “What should convince me?” Notice how much work the word should is doing there. “Should” means we are no longer treating our private psychology as the standard. We are now submitting ourselves to a rule, a norm, a guideline, or an authority outside of our immediate feelings. And in this case, the authority is reason. Because none of us are ideal observers. There is no situation where two human beings are reasoning from a perfectly neutral, bias-free standpoint. We all come with emotions, desires, fears, incentives, background assumptions, biological pressures, and psychological complexity. So the point of reason is not that it magically makes us unbiased. The point of reason is that it gives us a way to regulate our biases. It gives us a standard by which we can discipline our psychology, rather than letting our psychology sit on the throne and call itself rationality. And this is where the epistemology of evidence matters. In philosophy, evidence is not just “whatever makes me feel persuaded.” Evidence is a relation of support. One proposition is evidence for another proposition when it raises, supports, or increases the probability of that proposition being true.

We’ve got some exciting things in the works at IPA. This week we’re beginning development on a brand-new course covering Bayesian Epistemology and Rational Belief Formation alongside one of the leading scholars in the world working in this area. The goal isn’t just to teach Bayes’ Theorem. We want to help you understand how rational belief revision actually works, how evidence affects probability, how cumulative cases are built, and how these principles apply to questions about Christianity, history, miracles, science, and everyday reasoning. We’re also going to be building practical tools alongside the course, including: 📊 A Bayes Calculator 📈 Evidence-weighting tools 🧠 Interactive probability visualizations 🔬 Resources to help you apply Bayesian reasoning to real-world arguments and evidence If you had a chance to learn a topic with us: what topic? And what scholars would you want to hear from?