The 4th is that it is illogical because it conceives of a decree made in reference to nonentities.
4 This is another argument which appears more like a parlor trick than an actual, reasonable objection. I cannot see how it even rises to the level of an objection. In the common experience of all of us this exact thing happens all the time and the objector seems to be blissfully unaware of that fact. I will supply a few examples to prove this point.
I don’t mind saying that at my wedding I was very sharply dressed. I had planned to be sharply dressed and had already envisioned what I was going to wear. My very decision to wear that particular set of clothes is the reason why I bought it. So the above objection seems very weak and contrary to common fact.
The classical guitarist, Elliot Fisk, desired to perform Paganini’s 24 Caprices on guitar. When he originally planned the project, there were no known guitar techniques which would allow some of Paganini’s violin work to be played on guitar. Fisk set out to develop, or, invent, such techniques. After he successfully created the hitherto un-invented guitar techniques, he then transcribed the Caprices, and eventually recorded them. (Don’t ask how I know this; I am a metalhead, so it wouldn’t make sense.) Fisk’s ultimate design was not to create new guitar techniques or to transcribe violin music for guitar; those were merely the means necessary for the attainment of his ultimate goal. Plato said, “Necessity is the mother of invention.” We all know that the history of civilization proves this daily.
So, I find the Infralapsarian objection that Supralapsarianism entails making a decree regarding nonexistent entities more than a little unimpressive. For the life of me, I cannot see how it is a meaningful objection at all.