Apologetics

Recently, David Pallmann shared an Arminian critique of Molinism and argued that Simple Foreknowledge is the superior view. While his post is confident in its conclusions, it relies on several philosophical assumptions and category mistakes that require careful examination. I believe David’s critique rests on a number of misunderstandings—both philosophical and theological. In what follows, I will quote Pallman in segments and respond directly to each major claim (the entiret

I've been attending the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS) meetings since 2015. They are always a highlight of my year as I get to travel to new cities and meet thousands of like-minded people from around the world. Many of these people are my heroes. Many others are my “frienemies”—brothers and sisters in Christ who love me but oppose some of my theological positions (and that sentiment is mutual). One thing is for sure: it’s always iron sharpening iron (Prov. 27:17). I

On Christmas Eve, as I was walking into the gym, I paused for a brief moment and posted something on social media that had been on my mind: "God > anything else that could possibly be conceived." Many people immediately recognized this as a hat tip to Anselm’s famous definition of God: "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Others—almost certainly many who have never heard of Anselm—still understood it intuitively and seemed to appreciate it. I went to bed that n

Broken is the promise, betrayal / The healing hand held back by the deepened nail / Follow the god that failed  -Metallica (I strongly recommend that you listen to all the music that I link to here, it will make it far easier to grasp the points I’m making.) I suspect that most people who are not rock fans have no idea that Metallica wrote a song about the Exodus. The story is that their original bassist saw the death of the firstborn in The 10 Commandments , said something l

In the past few years while I was researching and thinking about a possible challenge to Perfect Being Theology, I stumbled across the argument I’m sharing here. [1]  So far the other philosophers and theology minded people I’ve shared it with have all received it positively. I do think it’s interesting or perhaps ironic that I only came to these conclusions after Eden was diagnosed. So there is a broad consensus in philosophy of religion that our world is not the best of all

Part 1: We Can Know How, not Why: But we really want to know Why. "He who has a why to live, can bear almost any how." -Fredrick Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols. [1] "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!"-God, Job 38:4-5 If you don’t know my family you wouldn’t know this, but our three-year-old daughter Eden has inoperable and incurable brain cancer. Absent an extreme medical breakthro

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has left millions grieving, and many asking the hardest theological question of all: Why does God allow such evil? Last week, the world watched in horror as Charlie Kirk was assassinated in cold blood. What some may not yet know is that one of my mentors and friend, Dr. Frank Turek, was right there with him. Frank was in the SUV. He prayed over Charlie in those final moments, and he even performed CPR though he already knew his friend was gon

Recently, my colleague and friend Dr. Tim Stratton issued a challenge on X which led to many responses. Dr. Stratton posited a form of what he calls a “Deity of Deception” (DoD) argument in an attempt to refute Deterministic Calvinism and show that Exhaustive Divine Determinism (or EDD, as he calls it) leads to epistemic meltdown if consistently applied in matters of faith and reason. This argument isn’t just a clever thought experiment; it goes straight to the heart of wheth

It amazes me how often—even in Christian circles—I hear people downplay, or even deny, that God must be worthy of worship. Some seem so committed to defending their particular view of Calvinism, Open Theism, or some other “ism” that they end up granting the claims of certain atheists: “Sure, maybe there’s a creator of the universe, but that doesn’t mean He’s a maximally great being or worthy of worship.” That’s a huge mistake—and completely unnecessary, especially when Molini

The core claim of compatibilism—that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism—is crushed under the pressure of a simple but inescapable argument. If a person is morally responsible, then it must be the case that the person could have  chosen  otherwise. This is the essence of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP). But if exhaustive divine determinism is true, no one ever could have chosen otherwise, for every choice would be the inevitable result of divi

Many are drawn to Open Theism because they believe it helps with the problem of evil. After all, if God doesn’t know what free creatures will do in the future, then He cannot be blamed for their choices—right? If God didn’t foresee the horrors that awaited, then perhaps He’s off the moral hook. At first glance, this seems like a promising solution. It paints a picture of a well-meaning deity doing His best in a dangerous world filled with free creatures. But upon closer exami

Philippians 2:6-11 is a well-known hymn in the New Testament, clearly affirming Christ’s divine nature. The hymn tells the story of the descent of Christ from heaven to earth, followed by his death, resurrection, and exaltation back into the heavens. What is Paul’s purpose behind it? When read on its own, one may think it is to argue for Christ’s divinity and his dual nature. Reading the passage apart from its literary context, however, misses Paul's broader point. From the s

Sometimes people ask really good questions that deserve really simple answers. Recently, someone asked this: “Even if we have libertarian free will (LFW), we still hold false beliefs. We don’t know which ones are false. So how can we ever be justified in thinking our beliefs are true?” It was a great question, and I realized it came from someone who had recently been exposed to two of my main arguments: the FreeThinking Argument and the Deity of Deception Argument . Both

In recent days, I’ve found myself in the crosshairs of both Calvinists and Open Theists . And honestly? I consider that a good sign. When two opposite extremes are each trying to pull you in their direction, there’s a decent chance you’re standing on a solid middle high ground. That middle high ground, for me, is Mere Molinism. What Is Mere Molinism? Mere Molinism affirms just two key claims: The omniscient God possesses middle knowledge —that is, knowledge of what any pos

One of the basic principles atheistic scientists live by is that science is based on evidence and religion is based on faith. I scarcely have to provide examples of atheistic scientists telling us that for something to be scientific, it must be evidence-based, and it must rely on the time-honored methods of scientific inquiry. Nor do I need to provide examples of them telling us there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God or miracles, and that all religious doctr

There was a time, back in 2017, when I wrote a blog article that stirred up some controversy — especially among my Calvinist brothers and sisters. It was called “ A Revised Free Thinking Argument: Two Birds with One Stone .” At the time, I wasn’t yet a PhD or trained to have philosophical precision. I was an eager apologist, deeply convinced that both naturalistic determinism and theological determinism posed serious problems for rationality. What I lacked in philosophical p

Philosophers have long wrestled with the question: What is the greatest conceivable being? The ontological argument , especially as formulated by Alvin Plantinga, says that if it's even possible for a maximally great being (MGB) to exist—a necessary being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent—then such a being must exist in every possible world, including the actual one. It’s a bold and beautiful argument. But it doesn’t stop at abstract theism. Once we realize t

In 2018, I published a blog post titled Avengers: Infinity War & Possible Worlds , unpacking what I saw as a striking parallel between Doctor Strange’s use of the Time Stone and God’s omniscience through the lens of Molinism. A year later, in Avengers: Endgame, Middle Knowledge, & the Destruction of the Problem of Evil , I revisited that analogy and expanded it into a forceful theodicy: if Doctor Strange can heroically allow temporary suffering in order to bring about the ult

Dear ChatGPT, I'd like to discuss an epistemological matter referred to as "direct acquaintance." In epistemology, direct acquaintance refers to a kind of immediate, non-inferential awareness or knowledge of something. When one is directly acquainted with something, one does not know it via reasoning, testimony, or interpretation, but through immediate experience or awareness. Although I disagree with him on many things, I believe Bertrand Russell was correct when he argued t

Risk is an inescapable part of life. We wear seatbelts because we can’t predict when an accident will happen. We buy insurance because we don’t know when a disaster might strike. We lock our doors at night, not because we expect a break-in, but because failing to prepare for one could prove catastrophic. Gun ownership operates on the same principle: it’s a rational hedge against an unpredictable world. This reasoning finds a striking parallel in Pascal’s Wager , a classic phi