Apologetics

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

In this discussion I return to Scholar GPT to ask it to perform a Bayesian calculation of the probability of God. I decided to include a few additional lines of scientific evidence for God that I did not include during my discussion with Academic Perplexity. I’m not certain Scholar GPT grasped the significance of the birth of the Universe from the initial conditions of “no spacetime” as Academic Perplexity did. For space reasons, I did not argue every point I might have. Stil

In this discussion I ask Perplexity AI about the scientific evidence for God and ask it to perform a Bayesian calculation of the probability of God based on two lines of evidence. Of course, there are many other lines of evidence but Perplexity seemed to grasp the persuasiveness of the argument so I limited the calculation to two lines of evidence. Perplexity calculates the probability of God at 99.9999%. Me : In my view, the scientific evidence for God is much like the scie

Perplexity AI is a popular Large Language Model (LLM). It has both a free version and a paid Pro version. For this discussion, I used the free version in Academic mode. Academic Perplexity is very similar to Scholar GPT, which is Chat GPT's academic mode. The knowledge base is trained strictly on academic literature, not from sources on the web. Some researchers prefer Perplexity AI in the Academic mode over Scholar GPT because Perplexity will cite the exact papers it is ref

ChatGPT is a popular artificial intelligence or Large Language Model (LLM). GPT stands for Generative Pre-Trained Transformer. It is a remarkable technology. In fact, ChatGPT has been credited as a co-author of a number of peer reviewed science papers. When in the Scholar mode, it is called Scholar GPT. Scholar GPT has been pre-trained on a large number of science papers in a variety of fields. Large Language Models are not perfect. In some cases, they misunderstand the qu

I recently posted the Nuremberg Argument on the FreeThinking Ministries Facebook page: 1- If the Nazis were properly convicted at Nuremberg, then God exists. 2- The Nazis were properly convicted at Nuremberg. 3- Therefore, God exists. I also shared this short video. The Nuremberg argument I shared is sound because proper convictions are based upon truth. If Chief Justice Jackson’s case – which was sufficient to convict the Nazis – was based upon false premises, then the Nazis

Why can't there be multiple necessary beings? There is a good a reason why no professional philosophers make this objection to ontological arguments (I’ll add the caveat that it’s possible that there is one somewhere who has made this objection, but I’ve studied this argument and its objections for years, so I should have found it if anyone has). Basically a maximally great being (MGB) is what a valid ontological argument needs to work and by definition a MGB is one thing an

Question: After watching your debate with Alex Malpass on Unbelievable? , I have a question regarding the following argument you offered: If naturalistic determinism is true, then human beings lack libertarian freedom. If human beings lack libertarian freedom, then their rational processes are unreliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters. Human beings’ rational processes are reliable to attain truth about metaphysical matters. Therefore, human beings have libertaria

Question Tim, thank you for the clarification Questions="><em>Questions" About="About" Divine="Divine" Hiddenness ="Hiddenness</em></a>"> . I want to register a worry I have about the first example given in your paper. Admittedly, you note that the second example is more persuasive than the first but maintain that both are sufficient to show that Schellenberg's argument cannot survive molinism. I want to specifically challenge that second claim. Consider the following two CC

Question: Hey, Tim. I recently read your paper against the hiddenness argument and I had an interpretation question. The first scenario you describe how “After coming to believe in God, a person may rebel against God and, in turn, damage the faith of other believers.” For me it wasn’t clear what you meant by faith. When you say ‘damage the faith’, do you mean damage the theistic belief of others or do you mean damage the relationship that others have with God? Or, possibly

Question Dear Dr. Stratton, I was watching a debate review where Taylor Cyr was talking about a revised Epicurean argument against determinism (pretty close to some of your Free-Thinking Arguments). While I don't think he raised any good objections (he didn't spend much time on it), his mention of it made me think of a possible objection to the support you use in your argument. I'm eager to get feedback on this, it probably comes down to a misunderstanding on my behalf. You s

"Why are we obligated to follow God's commands?" To respond by saying, "we are obligated to follow God's commands because God has commanded that we ought to follow His commands" is circular and does not work. It seems to me that the best way to answer this question is by noting that God's commands correspond perfectly with ultimate reality. Adam Lloyd Johnson, in his book Divine Love Theory , has noted that ultimate reality is the triune nature of God which *IS* love (1 John