Personality Conversations: Meet Your Types (MBTI)

The “God of the Gaps” argument—claiming that God explains what science cannot—has long been criticized for shrinking as human knowledge expands. But what if there’s a more nuanced version of this argument? One not rooted in ignorance, but in the fundamental limits of human understanding itself.

Enter Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which mathematically prove that within any consistent system of logic, there will always be true statements that cannot be proven within that system. Does this open the door to a rational acknowledgment of mysteries that may remain permanently beyond human explanation—whether those mysteries point to God, the transcendent, or simply the limits of reason?

In this session, we’ll explore:

What Gödel’s theorems actually say—and don’t say—about the limits of human knowledge.

Whether the “God of the Gaps” argument, when reframed as an acknowledgment of intrinsic limits rather than temporary ignorance, holds any philosophical merit.

Alternative secular explanations for the unknown, such as human cognitive limits, multiverse theories, or epistemological humility.

How this question intersects with science, philosophy, and personal belief systems across the spectrum.

This conversation is for skeptics, believers, and anyone intrigued by the boundaries of what we can know. It’s less about proving or disproving God, and more about asking: When we reach the edges of knowledge, what—if anything—should we place there?

Format: Lecture and discussion

Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.

Join us for a respectful, fact-based discussion exploring common beliefs and debates about trans people. We'll take a nonpartisan look at topics often discussed in politics and the media—such as participation in sports, healthcare, and legal protections. Are common conservative concerns about safety and fairness valid? Are progressive policies helping or hurting trans people and society? We'll focus on what evidence says, what remains debated, and where thoughtful people from different perspectives might find common ground. Open to all viewpoints; respectful dialogue is encouraged.

A little about our host:
Garrett is a programmer turned award-winning software inventor turned entrepreneur (PlateRate.com is his company). His hobby is writing and discussing practical philosophy, and he does life coaching on request to help people live happy, moral lives. He is also the executive director of The Free Thinker Institute (FreeThinkerInstitute.org), which aims to create a community that helps members increase happiness and decrease harm for themselves and those they can influence.

Format: Lecture and discussion

Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.

In today’s divided climate, political conversations can often feel tense, unproductive, or even unsafe. Yet open dialogue across differences is essential for a healthy democracy and thriving communities. This event will explore the role of safety in political discussions—what it means, why it matters, and how it can be created.

Together, we’ll ask:

• What does “safety” mean in the context of political dialogue?
• Can true understanding happen without it?
• How do we balance honesty and respect while discussing deeply held beliefs?
• What tools or practices can communities use to make political discussions safer and more constructive?

This will be an interactive conversation, not a debate. Our goal is to listen, learn, and reflect on how we can build environments where people feel secure enough to share openly—and courageous enough to hear perspectives that challenge their own.

Join us as we practice listening to understand and explore how safety might be the key to deeper connection and more meaningful political dialogue.

Our panel includes:

Stephen M. De Luca:
Stephen De Luca is an attorney with more than 30 years of experience, including clerking for a United States Judge for the Court of International Trade, serving in the Office of Chief Counsel for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, managing teams of up to 700+ attorneys working on complex litigation and regulatory matters for some of the world's largest law firms, and representing individual, business and corporate clients in a wide range of matters before administrative agencies, arbitrations, mediations, and state and federal courts at the trial and appellate levels. He currently serves as a Special Associate in the General Litigation Division of the NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, working on class action lawsuits brought against the City of New York and its agencies and officials. He has served as a volunteer attorney for the 2008 elections in Tampa, FL, the 2010 elections in Jersey City, NJ, and the 2020 elections in Erie and Pittsburgh, PA. He was the Republican nominee for County Executive for Hudson County in 2011 and an independent candidate for Congress for the 8th congressional district of New Jersey in 2012. He recently served on the Immigrant Affairs Commission for the City of Jersey City. He serves on the Board of Trustees of the NJ Coalition Against Human Trafficking. And he has worked with the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Paterson to ensure all clergy, employees, and volunteers are screened and trained in the prevention of child sex abuse. Stephen has a B.A. from the University of Rochester, a J.D. from Pace Law School, and an LL.M. and S.J.D. from Tulane Law School. Stephen is a former Naval Officer having served on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Midway (CV41), when it was permanently forward deployed out of Yokosuka, Japan. He lives in Lake Parsippany.

Blake McBride:
Blake McBride is a software engineer, author, and business owner with a keen interest in philosophy and politics. As a lifelong non-religious Republican and a deep thinker, Blake recognizes the limitations of his knowledge and remains open to the possibility of being wrong.

Throughout his forty years as an adult, he has encountered few individuals willing to engage in constructive discussions about politics. In recent times, the typical response has often been limited to ad hominem attacks, with little willingness to address the underlying issues. Blake eagerly anticipates the opportunity to share his perspectives and gain a deeper understanding of opposing viewpoints.

Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.