No, such a thing would be impossible, since it's self-contradictory; that's why it's a logically necessary fact that there are no square circles. What this means is that even if I were blind from birth, I could say with complete confidence "if my sight is restored, I will never see a square circle." I could not say with equal confidence, "I will never see an alien spacecraft," because that's not impossible, just very, very unlikely.
Which is why I wonder why you'd use this to justify your position.
You know what it does accomplish--- makes me wonder about your ideas of logically necessary.
Furthermore, I've never mentioned either of those two ideas, so it seems to me that you're just wandering around the desert places of your mind.
If you don't feel like getting into the distinction (between contingent/natural facts and logically necessary facts), we don't have to. Just start with "God could have chosen not to make Adam's descendants inherit their sin nature," which you seem to acknowledge. I said it made no sense to me that God would choose to place such a burden on us if he didn't have to. Your response was, first:
I only deal in the concrete.
So, reality being real, and therefore (because it's real, it's) logically necessary, I'm sticking with reality.....
You inherit your parent's DNA, and therefore the nature that comes along with that DNA.
Now I'm guessing that by "the concept" you mean the concept of logical necessity. (Right? Wrong?) If so, then you would be saying something like "God chose not to leave Adam's descendants free of sin nature, because the concept of 'logical necessity' is a misunderstanding of the realities of biology." But I don't understand that at all. Obviously my misunderstanding, if it is such, had nothing at all to do with God's choice in the aftermath of Adam's disobedience. Can you clarify this?
Well, you brought an absurdity into the discussion, stating that such was a logical necessity, so I'm wondering what you define as logically necessary, and makes something logically necessary?
This idea of logical necessity of something that is not a real device strikes me as something people like to use as an excuse to avoid, and escape from reality.
Or, we can just pick up from "he chose not to." Why did he choose not to? You say:
1) "Inventor's prerogative" means, basically, "he had the right to do it." Which seems to me quite false when it comes to the "inventing" of sentient beings. (Do you think that if a modern-day Dr. Frankenstein 'invented' a life form with all human feelings, he would have the right to do whatever he wanted to his creature? I don't.)
I don't deal in Mary Shelley's fantasy world.
Do you want to have a conversation about reality, or are you going to continue on with your fantasies?
When I say-- inventor's prerogative, I'm talking about the guy who first invented the hammer, then the guy who invented the wheel, then invented other real objects we use in real life every day.
I happen to drive a 2018 Jeep Cherokee. IT's a real object. The components contained in the Jeep I drive are logically necessary, because they exist.
Before they existed, they were ideas. Those ideas were tested, checked, toyed with, tweeked, and finally became real. Which necessitates their logical necessity.
By virtue of the laws of nature, there are constraints on those devices contained in my Jeep. Which make them logically possible.
There are laws of man, which define which devices I can use safely, therefore making them logically feasible/reasonable.
I can't hang upside-down, from the ceiling of my jeep, and drive inverted, because gravity will not allow it to function the way I can seated right side up.
So....
Inventor's prerogative is that God chose all of us to inherit our ancestor's DNA, and all the requisite restrictions, benefits, and consequences that come along with them.
My maternal grandfather was bald, and I inherited his hair DNA, so I'm bald. Admitted, I would like to have not started going bald at 17-1/2. That shocked the blazes out of me to have my girlfriend at the time brushing my hair, and scream, as she pulled out large clumps of my hair with each stroke of the brush. I went from being a mop-head with bushy hair to an increasingly thinning haired bald guy.
Now, I have a caesar look. At least I don't have to wear a green-leafed-wreathe around my head.
My mom had a bulbuous nose, so I got a bulbuous nose.
My paternal grandfather, and my mom both needed to wear glasses, so I now wear glasses.
My grandfather used bifocals to handle the different issues, and due to technological limits in our knowledge, and optical cutting devices, he had lined bifocals.
My coming up 49 years after him, allows me to enjoy "progressive" bifocal lenses.
Therefore, progressive lenses are now a logical necessity, because they are technologically possible.
Due to Moore's Law, I enjoy technology which did not exist in my youth, even though my dad was a logic designer in the 60's.
I still remember when he came home with a small, 3 x 3 circuit board, and said, "This is the future of computers!"
A week later, he came home with a caterpillar chip, and said--- I was wrong, THIS is the future of computers.
Therefore, as knowledge has increased, so has technological know how, and therefore now with the advance of both, I now hold a phone which is 10,000,000 times more powerful than the computer that our astronauts when to the moon on 51 years ago.
Thus, logical expansion, logical feasibility, logical awareness, knowledge, etc.... have expanded exponentially, to the point where we can do things that were in the realm of science fiction with H. G. Well's book, Time Machine, from the late 1800's.
2) Even if it weren't false, "Because he had the right to do it" is not a reasonable answer to the question "Why did he do it." If he had the right to do it, he also had the right not to do it, so "he had the right to do it" does not at all explain why he made that choice. (Compare, "why did the coach choose an all-out blitz rather than a prevent defense?" "Because he had the right to.")
Well, according to Deuteronomy 29:29, he's said he's kept certain things secret, but has given his law to us, so we, and our descendants can know Him.
Throughout the rest of the bible, we learn that he's not opposed to our learning, but that it's incumbent on us to take the time to do so. He ultimately tells us--- we know in part, and see in part, but the time is coming when he will make known to us just as we are known. 1 Corinthians 13:12.
According to Hebrews 4:13, we are naked, and fully exposed to God, in all our thoughts, and secret actions, so it would appear to me that we'll know everything.
Granted, that appears to only be for Jesus followers.
