ED: I see absolutely no reason why Calvinism's conception of sovereignty is "stronger" than an libertarian's.
SH: Existdissolve gets sillier with each passing comment. Logically speaking, a libertarian can’t have a doctrine of divine sovereignty.
As most he can believe in Geach’s Olympian Grand Master, where God doesn’t know his opponent’s next move, but knows all possible moves and can always outmaneuver his opponent.
Inspiration is a deterministic process—otherwise it wouldn’t be inspirational. Indeterministic inspiration is an oxymoron.
Indeed, Existdissolve admits as much himself. That’s why he doesn’t really believe in the inspiration of Scripture. It’s too deterministic for his libertarian pretensions.
ED: Of course, this gets back to the issue of how human language infuses words with meaning--you have chosen to say that your conception of sovereignty is "Strong." This, however, by no means establishes the point.
Again, you are presupposing a certain value for "providence" that may or not be an actual reality. That you interpret your conception of "providence" to be strong by no means mitigates against the antithetical viewpoint claiming the exact same thing.
SH: The “antithetical viewpoint” is self-refuting. So we can mount a transcendental argument for providence due to the impossibility of the contrary.
Your outlook is unable to ground successful communication.
You relativize meaning while conveniently exempting your own propositional statements.