Mind Trap

Some thoughts on explaining the Puppet objection to EDD (suggestions and edits welcome)

@notkosta5 @wsbtv Correct answer "She looks just like the prettiest girl in the world, only with one tiny flaw".

@wsbtv Imagine if one was your girlfriend and asked you “do you think my sister is attractive?” No way to win that one

Top of their class: Identical twin sisters graduate as valedictorian, salutatorian #Echobox=1779451768" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">wsbtv.com/news/trending/…

@TheMuppetPastor @Not_the_Bee You are surprised people thought He-mam had the power?

@Not_the_Bee They weren’t He-Man drones!!! Why don’t you people recognize evil sorcery when you see it!!!

The Los Angeles skyline was taken over by a He-Man drone show and people had thoughts about it notthebee.com/tfc47

@TheSeriesFeed No. The effect should have been pride. The de power blast should have been a surprise. Created by sister sage .. Planned all along. Home lander dominates fight... Only to suddenly be powerless. Pride..dominance. Fall

I believed the issue with Homelander nerfing was that the writers shot themselves in the foot by giving Homelander total invincibility early on, making a satisfying defeat mathematically impossible. In Season 1, his powers had logical, grounded limits. He explicitly couldn't save the crashing plane because he had no physical leverage to lift it while flying. He was the strongest Supe alive, but he wasn't a god(not in the level of Superman). As the show progressed, the writers abandoned these logical boundaries to maximize shock value. They built him up as an unstoppable, Superman-level force with zero physical weaknesses. By the time they needed to kill him off, they realized they had written a character who literally couldn't be beaten by anyone on the canvas. And the only thing the writer could have written to kill him was the virus angle but they ruined that angle as well with unnecessary V1 😑😑... V1 that we never heard of from S1 till now😂😂😂 I wish #ElonMusk had had #EricKripke arrested 😑😑 #Theboys #Theboysfinale #Homelander

A or B? A) It’s a mystery as to how our all-powerful, all-knowing, holy Creator is not implicated in the evil of the world He created, but we don’t believe He is. B) It’s a mystery as to how our all-powerful, all-knowing, holy Creator *brings about every morally evil desire, thought and action* yet is not implicated in the evil of the world He created, but we don’t believe He is. Do you see the major difference? The first appeals to mystery BEFORE claiming God brings about evil, while the other dogmatically and unnecessarily asserts He must have. * the term “brings about” is sometimes substituted with “ordains” or “sovereignly and unchangeably decrees” depending on the theologian, but the point is the same.

@jerry_duck48985 @Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 Let's test your hearing.. I will address all the distinctions directly. youtu.be/k6p1Ck0ab80?si…

@Mindtrap028 @Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 maybe... Idk.

Calvinists only please: True or False: God decrees whatsoever comes to pass except the sinful desires of creatures.

@jerry_duck48985 @Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 This may be a case of needing to hear the other side better.

@Mindtrap028 @Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 I've never seen them directly addressed. I've seen them COMPLETELY ignored plenty. Ultimately it's exegesis that wins it though which is why I don't choose to play word games but get to the text.

@SaintsArmed @MadeFromDirt @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 Sure.... "Sovereignty"

@MadeFromDirt @ProvisionistP @Soteriology101 @Mindtrap028 Can you give a brief explanation then of what Calvinism is?

@TheSire4 @Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101

@Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 @Mindtrap028 I hate that

@BornAgainBalaky @MaeOfFable So good looking America lost the revolution!? ... Impressive.

@MaeOfFable He wouldn’t be a president he’d be prime minister.

Yes! 😆😆😆😆🥰

@jerry_duck48985 @Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 It is not as though the distinctions y'all make are ignored. Rather they are directly addressed. Arguments for why they are distinctions without a difference. Illogical or umbilical. They are not ignored though.

@Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 @Mindtrap028 Sadly, they don't care about distinctions and categories. Well, that's been my experience.

@Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 "So the burden I mentioned earlier still stands"

I appreciate you going to the text, Genesis 2:19-20 is a wonderful passage. You’re right that Adam’s naming of the animals shows real intelligence, creativity, dominion, and genuine human choice. We in the Reformed tradition have never denied that for a moment. Adam acted voluntarily, according to his unfallen nature and reason, and God accepted the names he gave. That was meaningful moral agency. But this doesn’t actually answer the challenge or prove that the naming “requires all the elements of libertarian free will.” That’s the very assumption we’re debating. Compatibilism fully accounts for what happened: God sovereignly brought the animals to Adam “to see what he would name them,” ordaining both the circumstance and Adam’s willing response as a real secondary cause. Adam desired it, reasoned it, and did it freely according to his nature. Nothing in the text says his choices were undetermined by God’s decree, or that he possessed the power of contrary choice in the exact same prior conditions, or that he was the ultimate uncaused source of his volitions. Scripture simply doesn’t teach that. The pre-fall example is beautiful, but it doesn’t touch the much harder cases after the fall: How does a commitment to LFW explain God declaring the end from the beginning and accomplishing His purpose (Isa 46:9-10; Eph 1:11) when that purpose includes very specific sinful choices by responsible agents? Think of the crucifixion (“this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men”, Acts 2:23; see also Acts 4:27-28), Joseph’s brothers (Gen 50:20, “you meant evil… but God meant it for good”), the Assyrian acting with wicked intent while serving as the rod of God’s anger (Isa 10:5-7), Pharaoh’s hardening, Judas’s betrayal, etc. These are not generic possibilities; they are definite, declared outcomes involving real human choices that God ordained without being the author of sin. So the burden I mentioned earlier still stands: Show from Scripture that God wills humans to be the ultimate source of their choices (undetermined by His decree) rather than ordaining them as part of His eternal counsel while preserving real voluntary agency and moral responsibility. I’m not dodging the text, I’m asking you to engage the stronger ones. How does LFW square with Isaiah 46 when the “end” God infallibly declares includes countless specific choices that were supposedly open and could have gone the other way?

If God wills that humans make meaningful, responsible moral choices that He does not causally determine, and God’s will cannot be thwarted, then libertarian free will must be true. Our inability to explain how God creates such free agents does not undermine this any more than our inability to explain how God creates something from nothing undermines creation ex nihilo. Therefore, the burden lies on the theistic determinist: prove that God actually wills humans to make only choices that He exhaustively determines—including the choice of most theists to reject determinism.

The current state of online Christian apologetics sucks. Its not a battle of ideas, but egos. People care even less for their opponents than they care about truth, which is saying a lot.

@Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 This changes the context of God watching the act of creation by man, and it becomes the unfolding of necessity. Like watching an old T.V. show. Again, it paints a context that is opposite to the one in scripture.

@Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 -", or that he possessed the power of contrary choice in the exact same prior conditions," Again, this is contextually implied by the act of naming. If there were not real alternate possibilities. such that Adam could only name them one thing. Then the names were necessary 1/2

@Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 -"Nothing in the text says his choices were undetermined by God’s decree," First, there is no "decree" in the text. So that has to be read in. Second, the context says Adam named and God went to see. Which is the opposite of God Decreeing, and going watch it play out.

@Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 Sorry that was 3/4 not 4/5.. You raised some other questions, but I am cutting the response short of them. Instead focused on how this specific example answers the original challenge.

@Pastor_ChrisH @Soteriology101 are not compatible with determinism. For example "strongest desire' does not explain the the concept of creativity. Determinism is also incompatible with creativity. Because if God is the one who originated the idea, He is the only one "being creative". 4/5