YungReason

@UrBoyTimmyT @SeeRacists Yes until his next hearing the 21st

@SeeRacists So is Chud currently still in jail?

🚨 Racists are desperately smearing Joshua Fox, the disabled Army veteran shot by Chud The Builder, by falsely labeling him a child predator Ironically, the man with 23 counts of solicitation of a minor is a completely different person — its actually a white man named Joshua Andrew Fox. Joshua Fox is the victim. Period.

@lolatheseawitch O yea you're right. But how do they save the children? Only way I can think is story walking. Also prepare for either Tabatha or Jade to die

@YungReason1 They have to save the children not kill a new one! If anything that would just be repeating the cycle of of townspiele sacrificing children for something in return

Just solved the code of From. They sacrifice Ethan to go home. Jade said at the end that he knows how they go home. They have to sacrifice a child. #From

@SeeRacists I'd rather be a racist then a rapist

🚨 Earliest known audio of the Chud The Builder shooting just dropped and listen to what this clown says right after: “I DINDU NUFFIN” Meanwhile, the arrest warrant shows he turned into a “bladed stance” and reached for his firearm BEFORE the fight even started. Chud didn’t get jumped. He started it, shot the man, then immediately played innocent. The lies are falling apart in real time

@gmm344 @knotta_bot @SeeRacists You defending a p3do bro?

@knotta_bot @SeeRacists Sybau cum stain

@SeeRacists Are you talking about yourself? You literally got convicted you dirt bag piece of shit

What do you believe should be the minimum sentence for anyone convicted of sexually abusing a child? Drop your answer 👇 I read every single reply.

The jews & the slave trade.

@crusaderclipsgg You justifying Jeffery Dahmer now gypsy? That ain't it

Joker truth nuke 🃏⚡️ #omegle #ometv #monkeyapp

This is what should happen.

@Tim0riginal @Tsar_Martyr Desire does not equal causal determination. A rational being can desire an outcome while refusing to use immoral or logically contradictory means to achieve it. Before we move one step further, define "transconditional necessity."

So we've now shifted modalities. Originally the discussion was about logical possibility, and you've now conceded a world where all freely choose God is logically possible (finally). Your position is now that such a world may be transconditionally infeasible given creaturely counterfactuals. But that creates a different issue: if universal salvation is infeasible for God, then God's "desire" that all be saved is conditional rather than ultimate or effective. So do you now reject premise 2 of the original argument?

No atheist rejects God for logical reasons

@misfitpatriot_ @Jase_TR This is Ai bro. You are Embarrassing 😂😂😂

@Jase_TR Sure…

Like it or not, if this is true every single argument Chud supporters make is invalid. There’s literally zero self defense argument, free speech argument, or second amendment argument. You aren’t free to get into arguments, pull a gun before there’s a fight, and shoot someone. Full stop, end of fucking story.

@iFightForKids Chud haters like @misfitpatriot_ post fake screen shots of Chud holding a gun, when the actual stream shows he was on the phone with the police. These are the people who pretend to want justice.

@Tim0riginal @Tsar_Martyr You are completely out of your depth. Can you define "transconditional necessity"?

@Tim0riginal @Tsar_Martyr You just committed a textbook category error. A world where everyone says "Yes" is logically possible in itself. But it is transconditionally impossible for God to actualize if the counterfactuals don't line up. God desires the outcome, but He cannot logically force

@Tim0riginal @Tsar_Martyr You are the one claiming it does exist. You are asserting that a world where everyone says "Yes" is feasible. That is an extraordinary claim about the free choices of billions of independent agents. What is your objective warrant for assuming that specific counterfactual is true?

Correct. Under Molinism, God does not determine what creatures would freely do. I've agreed repeatedly. But that still doesn't answer the question: why think the feasible worlds are such that every world containing free creatures also contains rejection of God? You keep restating the structure of Molinism, but the controversial premise is whether a feasible world where everyone freely chooses God could exist.

Fuck Israel

@Tim0riginal @Tsar_Martyr You just acknowledged that God is restricted by the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. If those counterfactuals are true prior to God's decree then God does not determine what creatures would do. the set of feasible worlds is restricted by creaturely freedom not God's desires

Your argument is that under Molinism, God cannot actualize a world where creatures freely do something they would never freely choose, because the creature is the sufficient cause of the choice. My response is that this still doesn't show there is no feasible world in which all creatures freely choose God. Libertarian free will alone does not entail that every feasible world must contain rejection of God.

@Tim0riginal @Tsar_Martyr You still don't get Molonism. The contradiction is expecting God to actualize a state of affairs where the sufficient cause (the creature) does something they wouldn't actually do. Steelman my argument now.

That makes no sense under omniscience/foreknowledge. "Gambling" would imply some type of uncertainty about the outcome. But under your own Molinist type framework, God already knows what every creature would freely do in every feasible world before actualizing one. So if God actualizes a world where everyone freely says "yes" he isn’t gambling. He knowingly chose that world. Which brings us back to the question you still haven't answered: What's the contradiction in a world where everyone freely chooses God?

@Tim0riginal @Tsar_Martyr you are still completely blind to your own contradiction. If God actualizes a world, He chooses which world becomes real. If God chooses a world where everyone says "Yes," but the creatures had the power to say "No," then God is gambling, not actualizing.

Ok I admit the analogy kinda fails. Fair point. However this is the bind you keep running into: If God actualizing a world automatically means God determines every choice in it like an author writing a book, then libertarian free will disappears because creatures never truly could have done otherwise. But if creatures really do possess libertarian freedom, then you still need an argument for why it's logically impossible for all creatures to freely choose God. You keep bouncing between these two positions.

😂😂😂