Parture,

 I've got some issues with a lot of what's going on in this conversation (both on air and off), and a lot of it stems from unproductive dialogue.

Rather than address the problems I see in your argument, I think it would be a lot better if I first established a framework upon which we can build a cohesive discussion. You're talking about time a lot throughout your arguments, and if we can't come to an agreement or even partial understanding of what exactly time is, then this is just a huge waste of... well, you know.

When I talk about time, I don't use the same definition that a physicist would use. Such an analysis would break down as soon as you attempt to establish a non-physical entity (which is probably what you believe in), so that wouldn’t be prudent. Instead, I will be using a logical definition of time, and that is precisely what I am establishing with this post.

 Imagine I were to hold a perfectly usable basketball in front of you and ask, “Is this ball inflated?” You would say yes.

 Then, I poke a hole in the ball and allow it to deflate. I then ask, “Is this ball inflated?” You would say no. Would it be fair for me to say that you have contradicted yourself? After all, you said that the ball is both inflated and not inflated. That can’t be the case, right? But this would be unfair, and in order to illustrate why my criticism does not hold, you would have to invoke time.

 Time is defined as the fact that there is change, or an analysis of said change.

 So with our basketball, all the questions I have asked so far have been consistently in regards to the same object, and the same status (its inflation). However, each question was made in regards to a different point in time, what logicians call a situation. So we can refine my two questions in this way:

 Is the basketball inflated in situation A?
 Is the basketball inflated in situation B?

 Now, it becomes clear that although our original two questions were grammatically identical, they had two different meanings, because they were asking about the state of affairs in regards to two different situations.

 You might say that the law of non-contradiction already acknowledges this, as it states that x cannot be true and false simultaneously. But I should point out that the reason the law contains that word is because of precisely the analysis I have put forward here.

 So if this is the definition of time that we are going to work with, I have a few problems with your argument. Before I go on with that, let me know if you acknowledge this definition.

 If you do, great. Just let me know, and I’ll procede. If not, then let me know why you don’t. Is it incoherent? Have I contradicted myself? Is it totally incompatible with the way we ordinarily speak about time? Or, maybe you just need me to go into more detail on a few issues (which I’d be happy to do). But know this, if this definition simply will not work, then I’m going to ask you what your definition is. If you can’t provide one, then I will rightly disregard your entire argument. It would be, by definition, incoherent.

 I look forward to your response.