What's it called when you ask someone to eat their cereal and not eat it at the same time? How does anyone to ~(not)something?
LOL.. Go get a book on logic. Proving a negative is demonstrating that something is never true. I could ask you to prove that no one has ever circled the world by running. Well, that's impossible, because you cannot account for the lives of every person. The onus is on the person who makes the assertion to prove that someone has.
However, in this case, I've made a logically sound basis for saying that one is not able to do something, and you've said that's not true, that one is able. Thus, the onus is on you to demonstrate that my logical assertion is incorrect.
What YOU'VE discovered is a valid logical conclusion which is the basis for #4. You are correct that that someone can't do something and not do it. That's why #4 is the logical conclusion of #3! (And also why all your examples below are invalid.)
Which I have by showing you the difference between what I will do and what I can do just as you previously pointed out to Lee about God's ability to do/do otherwise in no way forces him to do both. I have proven my ability to do otherwise through testimony from my daughter, unless you think she's lying. I figured you understood the circular rock lifting from the moment you hit the submit button. Could it be that you don't? I doubt it. You probably think it's my circular rock lifting so I'll clarify what I think is wrong with your test.
You're trying to argue from modal logic, and I've not asserted necessity. Get out of your pigeon hole and pay attention.
Do you see the part where you say 'A is definitely foreknown'? - This part is speaking to what I'm willing and able to do.
Incorrect. This speaks of what God eternally and definitely knows. There is nothing in #2 about your ability or willingness.
Don't believe this:
3) Thus it is eternally and definitely known that X WILL do A at time Z.
That's a fine assertion, but again, it's yours, not mine. It's irrelevant to the conversation.
I draw the the conclusion that I am able to do it because I will only do what I'm able to do(in opposition to being unwilling to do everything I'm able to do; and, of course unable to do what I'm willing to do). The bottom line is to accomplish anything including A, I must be willing and able; not just one or the other.
I'm unconcerned with what you are willing to do.
Do you see the part where you say 'You're saying that you're able to do ~A'? - This part is speaking to what I'm able but not willing to do which means it won't be enacted because it requires both will and ability to become real.
And I'm concerned with ability, not willingness.
How so? When I hit submit reply then only what I will do appears, not what I'm capable of doing. When you make a post is that it? Is it finished? If that were true you would have only ever made one post. Apparently your abilities range beyond a single post.
However, I can only hit 'submit reply' for a given post at one given time. That's why there is "at time Z" in there.
And, again, if you're capable, you can do it. Show us! Do it multiple times, if you wish.
I haven't dodged your reply. You have a circular argument which doesn't address the problem of the relationship between will and ability. The confusion is yours, not mine.
LOL.. Is this all you have? Throwing out logical terms that you apparently have no clue what they mean, and thinking that they're valid?
You've not shown "prove a negative" or "circular logic."
No. I'm simply replacing your variables with words:
And changing the categories. I'm speaking of specific decisions, and you're speaking of generalities. You could do this to any valid proof.
X=God,
A=Show Mercy, fish, sing, throw, paddle, hunt, eat, etc....(pick one, your choice)
Z=the judgement, 4 p.m., tommorrow, next month, etc.....(pick one, your choice)
#3)It is eternally known that X(God) will A(show mercy) at time Z(the judgement).
#4)Thus, X(God) can only A(show mercy) at time Z(the judgement.)
If you're not intelligent enough to grasp why this is invalid, then there's no point in discussing further with you. I've already told you why this is invalid.
Wow! I added 'to some' so that your correction would be consistent. Why did you insert 'to some' into my statement. Did it make it more relevant to you? Did it fix your problem or did you have to remove the 'to some' in #4 so that it would make sense to what you want to be true? I only used this example because you foreknow that God is capable of doing other things besides showing mercy(to some if your prefer) at the judgement seat; but your proof, if valid would, preclude Him from doing so. The only way to test the proof is replace the variables. I'll try a different combination:
#3) Thus it is eternally and definitely known that God will fish next month.
#4)Thus, (God) can only (fish)(next month).
This is called "equivocation." It's playing with words. Let's fix it:
#3 It is eternally and definitely known that God will fish at 6pm on the 15th, next month
#4 Thus, God can only Fish at 6pm on the 15th next month.
And that would be accurate.
You see, the problem you have is that you don't realize the importance of "at time Z" in my proof. And, because of this, you throw out an even that happens in a large time frame, and then say that must happen all the time in that frame, and that's not valid.
Which is apparently what your test is meant to ask me to do. :dunce: , but doesn't. I answered the 'test' in its stated form and you are asking me to answer this question instead. The answer is that A, and ~A are both valid alternatives at time Z even though it is foreknown that you will do A.
Proof? Or are we just to take your word for that? I have a syllogism that demonstrates otherwise.
They can't be performed through your will at the same time even if they are both valid alternatives. For example I can't walk and not walk simultaneously. I can, however, walk or not walk as a given ability. What I will do is foreknown/foreseen from eternity and has no bearing on what I can do.
Again, you've shown no logical basis for this claim. You just make this statement and expect us to accept it.
Step up, logic master. Show us your logical syllogism.
Perhaps you should get your head out of your test(which I answered whether you understand the answer or not) and make some substitutions into your own proof and find a statement that makes sense with it. It's probably that simple. Find the words which fit your statements 3 and 4. Pick any combination. All I ask is that you keep x=God so that it amplifies the absurdity for your benefit.
LOL... The fact that you can't see how invalid this only demonstrates your inability to grasp it.
p.s. If I really didn't answer your 'test' the first time, I apologize. It's true, I just might be that dense.:hammer: ; so help me out will ya. I'll try to shorten the responses. I usually make my replies in 2-5 minute intervals at work, but I was home this time. Sorry.
Tell you what.. Make it it's own post, and title it "I passed the test" and just put in that post your demonstration that assumes God foreknows that you will use the word "superfluous" in that post, and then you do otherwise, while maintaining the truth of what God definitely knew.
Muz
