Yaakov Somar
@YaakovSomar
Followers
31
Following
331
Statuses
818
Christian Apologist. LBCF1689. Theonomy. Patriarchy. Learning Greek & Hebrew. The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Join the cause.
Theological Seminary
Joined December 2023
The Leighton Flower & Warren McGrew tag-team problem - A thread 🧵 Leighton Flowers and Warren McGrew are both anti-reformed polemicists. Both supposedly recognise problems commonly in the reformed worldview.
14
1
10
I have no idea how the provisionist brain works: Here a provie guy attaches a question just in response to my post and then afterwards stubbornly pretends that my post was a response to his question. It's a mystery how they still function as humans.
You might want to settle down, re-read the thread and then think of how you might handle this differently, since it was a question directly related to your post If your "mechanical chain of causes" which God causes ≠"the domino chain model" then say something like "let me clarify what I meant"
0
0
0
@_DHDS @triplett_mark @themirrordimly @Mindtrap028 @CCalvinism That's not how normal people work. You don't randomly make interrogative statement after someone says something and then pretend that the statement that was made formerly was the answer to your question. Unless you are mentally disabled.
0
0
0
@triplett_mark @_DHDS @themirrordimly @Mindtrap028 @CCalvinism In other words, the asker (@_DHDS), the askee(@YaakovSomar), the content of the asking (How @YaakovSomar understands causes) and the subsequent response ("the domino model"). All of them must be present in the receipts. Or else you are a confident liar. Exodus 20:16
1
0
0
@synodofdork This is unnecessary mud slinging. Being snarky with arminians isn't gonna help them from their delusion. Please post actual arguments next time, if you really wanna be productive.
0
0
0
@Mindtrap028 @ProvisionistP Plenty of Reformed Christians and as well as many learned philosophers who may or may not profess a Christian worldview understand it as illogical. So your claim of "no one" is false.
1
0
0
@Mindtrap028 @ProvisionistP From what I get from this conversation, you don't understand what Libertarian Free Will is. I have no idea why you would espouse a position that you don't understand though. I'm not going to prejudicially assume your intentions though. That'd be unfair.
1
0
0
@Mindtrap028 @ProvisionistP I mean, you are demonstrating my point. If there is no analogy that you can produce for LFW, then it's very likely not a logically coherent concept.
1
0
0
@Mindtrap028 @ProvisionistP You are welcome to admit that you are either unwilling or unable to produce any analogy for LFW. Just like the gazillion of other LFW proponents.
1
0
0
@Mindtrap028 @ProvisionistP As stated, you have demonstrably lied about my intentions, as one can see in the other posts.
1
0
0
@Mindtrap028 @ProvisionistP It's a lie because your bearing false witness about my intentions. My intent was not to shift any so called burden of proof. The reason I asked for an analogy of LFW is because I have ipso facto never seen any valid ones from anyone.
2
0
0
@Mindtrap028 @ProvisionistP I said nothing about the burden of proof before you uttered it. Even granting that this is a paraphrase, you're still lying.
2
0
0
@Mindtrap028 @ProvisionistP Well, contrary to colloquial narrative, the burden of proof lies in the ones who want to convince, not solely on either party. The more you want to convince someone, the greater the burden of proof you have It is manipulative to pretend that "only my opponent has the BoP, not I"
1
0
0
@Mindtrap028 @ProvisionistP A syllogism works when it (1) has two different premises that INDEPENDENTLY are valid (2) which also demonstrably work together to validate the conclusion. You can't assume the conclusion in an isolated premise(s). That's the key issue. All the premise must work together.
1
0
0