How to simplify this complex syntax and ambiguous word usage? [closed]
Solution 1:
It is admittedly an example of tortured writing.
But here's an attempt at simplification. However, I can't really help the author improve their conceptualizations!
It's OK (warranted) to assume that the ideas that were mentioned above are true, except for two thoughts (reflections) we want to add:
We can't assume that God has done more than the minimum required (acts of God cannot be presumed supererogatory)
Not all of these conditions are necessary to believe the conclusion. OR The conclusion/result (object) seems as likely (to exist?) when we throw away some of the proposed conditions, just as they would exist if all of the proposed conditions existed from the beginning.
It's unclear exactly what the sentence is saying without more context. But in short, it seems the author is responding to someone else's argument by saying:
I'm comfortable with the assumptions made, except that we didn't need all of the preconditions to come to those conclusions, and we need not think God has done anything extra here.