Free will

[Ignorant]

Regardless of whether events happen contingently, just because, magic, or for no particular reason, I must choose whatever is described or the claim to foreknowledge is false.  I cannot choose b, if the foreknowledge claims a -and- is true.  This is a freedom my "free will" does not have.  This is a necessity of a true claim to foreknowledge.   Do we disagree?

Yes we disagree. You wrote "I must choose whatever is described ["regardless of whether events happen contingently"]". <= This doesn't make ANY sense.

I disagree that it is "regardless of whether events happen contingently". Choice requires contingency. If you must choose b, it MUST mean that you MUST choose b contingently. I don't see any other way choice is possible

Is this the same thing as saying you MUST choose b freely? NO!

-as to comments of contingency, not at all relevant to my opinion of free will, foreknowledge, and the things people say to maintain their beliefs in either/both...

Right, the more you write it, the less convincing it becomes for me. Tell me again how the concept of possible options is irrelevant to your opinion of free will?

this contigency business turns gods omnscience, in context, into an issue of running stats before football games.  If they put in x yards rushing, and hold the team to x yards passing - then they win.  I don't think that passes for knowledge, let alone foreknowledge with human beings, and I doubt that it's your intention to reduce god to a cosmic bookie......just to establish some "sense" in which foreknowledge and free will are compatible.

You're right, that isn't my intention AT ALL. Clearly, you are struggling to distinguish contingency from choice and freedom. That is ok, I did too.

You are confusing my suggestion that some actions (like fruit trees making fruit) are conditional with the idea that god's knowledge is conditional. God's knowledge of conditional things is not itself conditional (in the sense of uncertain). Your analogy to the football stats demonstrates the confusion well:

According to your analogy:

God knows: 
     1) IF team A rushes for x yards (condition 1) and team A holds team B to y yards passing (condition 2), THEN team A will win the game.

God does not know: 
     1) Whether or not conditions 1 and/or 2 will actually obtain, and therefore whether or not team A will win the game.\

The above is conditional knowledge, in which case God's knowledge is just like our knowledge. YOU ARE RIGHT TO REJECT THIS AS DUMB

HERE IS A BETTER ANALOGY:

God knows: 
     1) IF team A rushes for x yards (condition 1) and team A holds team B to y yards passing (condition 2), THEN team A will win the game. 
     2) Team A will rush for x yards (condition 1)
     3) Team A will hold team B to y yards passing (condition 2)
     4) Team A will win the game because of condition 1 and 2

God does not know: N/A

It's not that complicated.

Remember, that you've been softballed here in being allowed to simply assume that either exist in the first place. 

Assume? Would you mind quoting me where I assume either free will or god's foreknowledge as actually existing?

If you can't come up with f'ing concepts for them both that don't rely on equivocation in order to keep them from crumbling under each other's respective weight...I think the whole thing is DOA.

HA! Is this real life? I have been, repeatedly, pointing out equivocations and requesting time and time again that we DISTINGUISH between determine, necessity and contingency. How does that "rely on equivocation"?