Assume there are two mutually exclusive events, A and B, one of which we can do, and one of which must happen (i.e. we will get up at 6:00 AM, or we won't).

a)If A must happen, then B can't happen.
b)If B can't happen, then we can't do B.
c)If A must happen, then we must be the case that we will do A.

I was sort of taking for granted these things, but it occurs to me, due to any lack of progress in getting my contradiction question answered, that maybe I shouldn't have. So I'd like to ask these clarifying questions, and see if we can get agreement on the above points.

Any disagreement on the above points?

The word "must" and "can't" are the problems.

There isn't any "must" or "can't" in freewill.

It, therefore, should be:

a) If I choose A, then B won't happen.
b) If I choose B, then A won't happen.

The questions I'm asking aren't dependent upon free will. What would your comments be on what I actually asked? Do you agree with the comments? Think of these things as being events which don't involve free will if you wish. You can replace "we" with an inanimate object. Really, free will doesn't impact what I'm asking in any way. There simply statements about English, to make sure we're understanding the same things by these words.

I'll rephrase the questions so they don't have "we" in them:

a)If it is the case that A will happen, then B can't happen.
b)If B can't happen, then it is not possible for some entity do B.
c)If A must happen, then it must be the case that the entity involved will do A.

The entity spoken of here, can be an inanimate object. Do you agree with these statements? If not, why not? If the entity involved has free will, do you see that any of these statements becomes logically false?

Tom, how would you explain this to a 4 year old?

Jesus loves you.

That should be enough for us grownups aswell, dont you think?

In the case of an inanimate object, such as a rock, if I let go a rock from my hand, then the rock must fall from cause and effect. The rock doesn't have any choice in the matter.

The same goes for a person. If you are thrown out of an airplane, you will fall to the ground, again from cause and effect. You also do not have any choice in the matter.

In both cases, if A is the fallen object, be it a rock or a person, then B can't happen, B being that the rock or the person doesn't fall to the ground.

Daryl, is there some reason you cannot respond to what I'm actually asking?

a)If it is the case that A will happen, then B can't happen.
b)If B can't happen, then it is not possible for some entity do B.
c)If A must happen, then it must be the case that the entity involved will do A.

These are straightforward statements, which have nothing to do with free will or foreknowledge. Do you disagree with any of these statements? (again, A and B are mutually exclusive events)

Using my rock example, a falling rock will fall towards the ground (A). It can't fall towards the sky (B).

In this example, I agree with your a,b, and c list.

Thank you for your response.

Ok, let's use an inanimate object that can do one of two things, one of which is possible, and the other possible as well. For example, a piece of wood is going down a river which forks. The wood will go to the left or to the right. Would you agree that

a)If it is the case that A will happen, then B can't happen.
b)If B can't happen, then it is not possible for some entity do B.
c)If A must happen, then it must be the case that the entity involved will do A.

where A is the event that the wood will go to the left and B is the event that the wood will go to the right?