But your test does require choosing both options and is therefore invalid even according to your own definition.
No. My test requires choosing one or the other, and seeing if you pass the test. By now you realize that both options result in failure, which only demonstrates the logical contradiction of your position, but in no way does it require you choosing both.
You didn't, that's true. You said I will do A and demonstrate doing other than A. You didn't ask me to choose. I already submitted that this is impossible.
I never said that you would do A. I said that it was foreknown that you would do A. Are you saying that foreknowledge causes you do to something?
An I only asked you to do one thing. DEMONSTRATE doing otherwise than what you will do.
But "What I will do" is undefined. That's the problem. What is foreknown for you is defined, and thus your choice has meaning for the outcome of the test.
If you're an open theist then "what you will do" can never be defined, so what's the problem. I don't care about definitions I want a demonstration of you doing otherwise.
Once you define what success and failure looks like, we can proceed. You haven't done that yet.
No. My position assumes free will just as yours does so I'm 'sliding' nothing.
Sorry, but your statement asserts that "what I will do" is already defined. An unsubstantiated claim.
I've simply pointed out that we are unable to accomplish a demonstrations of 'doing otherwise' because it's impossible from either view. You haven't done other than what you did and you won't do other than what you do. False - No.
Again, incorrect. You cant' say for certain what I did was otherwise or not, because you have no standard upon which to judge.
Furthermore, since 'what I will do' is undefined, you are unable to make such a determination.
But you've not been able to define success for your test, because you can't tell me what I will do. I've defined success clearly for you. You just can't attain it.
I don't need to tell you what you will do. I only need state what is foreknown, and ask you to demonstrate LFW by doing otherwise. Success is doing otherwise while maintaining the truth of what is foreknown. Both the conditions and outcomes are clear. There's nothing undefined in my test at all.
Further,
Meaningless - Yes. Just as your test. In fact it's the same test, except you've limited what I will do to "use the word superfluous"; and I have graciously allowed you to do anything you wish in the next post. Be creative. Make it happen. Let's see it!
Again, that's incorrect. I have NOT limited what you will do to "use the word Superfluous." You may either use it or not use it! The point is that the test is clear.
OTOH, you're asking me to generate my own test, and you're unwilling to accept that you've both asked me to do something that is NOT LFW (both both A AND ~A), and to determine success and failure without a standard!
Do your homework man! Define success and failure clearly!
That's true, but then the test asks us to do otherwise than what we truly will do. No is able to achieve this.
VERY GOOD, SHERLOCK! We're making progress.
Thus, we can conclude from your discovery
that LFW and EDF are logically incompatible!. Excellent!
If you are able then do so. Again, I'm not asking you to do anything whatsoever. I only want a demostration of 'doing otherwise' so I might know that it is a valid concept. A demonstration mind you, not an explanation, a theory, etc..... Press submit and let us all see the result.
Again, you haven't provided a standard of success and failure. Why should I do your work for you?
I don't think either of us would say this.
You certainly seem to be implying that foreknowledge makes only one choice available to you. I thought maybe you mean that it was making you choose.
The condition of your test is to do both simultaneously and is invalid. Do as God knows you will do and demonstrate doing otherwise(paraphrased).
Incorrect. The condition of my test is to do either 'A' or '~A', demonstrating the ability to do ~A in the presence of the foreknowledge of you doing 'A.' I've not asked you to do both, but to choose just one. You may even do the test twice, choosing 'A' for the first test, and '~A' for the second test, and evaluating success for each, if you wish.
My condition do anything and demonstrate doing otherwise.(Again, not explain - demonstrate. Press submit and it will be there.)
Unfortunately, you haven't defined what success looks like, so when you do your homework, we'll talk again.
I'm simply asking you to demonstrate ~A so that I'm able to know it's a valid/demonstrable option when you do A.
Again, you're shifting the burden of defining success onto me, when it is you that has to define success and failure. I've already completed the test to my satisfaction.
I haven't asked you to do both. I've explained that is the way the parameters of both our tests require us to answer. I've only asked you to
demonstrate ~A.
Incorrect.
Specifically you asked:
"Now, while maintaining that you will use the word 'superfluous', demonstrate not using the word 'superfluous'".
Unfortunately, the first statement is definite foreknowledge, and isn't valid.
You've also admitted:
Well, it would appear it would require you to demonstrate doing something and not doing it at the same time: let's say use the word 'superfluous' and not use the word 'superfluous' at the same time. That would prove that you were able to do otherwise. Sound familiar? It doesn't matter who knows it or if it's even known.
Stating that your test requires both 'A' AND '~A' as has been pointed out previously. You haven't changed what little work you've put into your test to this point, so when you sort that all out, let me know.
Your test requires me to.....
Minor difference. I'm not asking you to do differently than what you will do. I'm asking you to do differently than what is foreknown. Unless, of course, you want to state that what is foreknown causes you to do what you will do, there shouldn't be an issue, here.
Demonstrating doing A is easy
But that's not part of the test.
its the ~A demonstration I need your help with.
Seriously? You don't know how to make a post that doesn't use the word "superfluous?"
Would you please demonstrate doing ~A for me in your next post. Or shall you accept that it's impossible under any condition? Remember, no explanations are necessary when you press submit I should see you not doing A. OK?
I'm glad to see you admit that the test is impossible to pass. That should tell you that the what you propose to be possible is, in fact, logically impossible. As you discovered earlier, this is, in fact, the case. It's not that your test is invalid. It's perfectly valid, defining the assumptions, and providing the available options, with definition for success and failure being very clear.
The problem is, as you've noted, that the "success" option is impossible, making your position logically contradictory.
Muz
