Theological Fatalism

Originally posted by LemonJello
The premises which define events as 'necessary' are characterizing the reality that God created, as well as characterizing His knowledge. He doesn't see anything as 'necessary.' Instead, He knows perfectly all things, both possible and actual.

So your main problem is with Premise 2, I'd say -- or more specifically with the idea that past events a ...[text shortened]... eternal and thus not subject to temporal development, which should satisfy you.[/b]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

Let's take a look at this thing and see if we can hammer out even more understanding.

1. Yesterday, it was true that God eternally believes P.
Let's change that to "it was true that God knew P."

2. Thus, since the past is now necessary, it is now necessary that yesterday it was true that God eternally believes P.
And change this to "since the past is now actual, it is now certain that yesterday God knew P."

3. Necessarily, if yesterday it was true that God eternally believes P, then P.
First, we need to change "eternally believes" to "knew" (already conceded to mean the same as 'infallible knowledge' ). After this, I think, is where we get into trouble. Specifically, we hit a snag with the word "then." But we'll wait to see how much trouble, exactly.

4. If X is now necessary; and if necessarily, X implies Y; then Y is now necessary.
Again, 'necessary' replaced with 'actual.'

5. From 2, 3, and 4, it is now necessary that P.
This is where the biggest problems come out. Directly, the problem is "it is now necessary," which doesn't appear to to be cleared up by changing it to "it is now actual" as we have already stated the same idea earlier, and this premise appears to be emphasizing the tense, the "now" of the proposition. I think this is also where I read more into it than perhaps is warranted. My reading is that 'now actual' if taken from God's perspective is in contradiction to His infallible knowledge. As stated earlier, God's perfect knowledge includes knowing all of time as one comprehensive unit, and not subject to development and/or progression. Therefore, there is no linear 'now' for His knowledge to acquiesce. The entire unit of time is presently already known, even those things which have not come to pass while I type this or while it is read by you.

6. If it is now necessary that P, then Lemon cannot do otherwise than tie his right shoe at 3 P.M. tomorrow.
From God's perspective (assuming we have changed 'necessary' to 'actual' already), and given that His knowledge of time is as one comprehensive unit, a better way of expressing this would be "Lemon cannot do other than what Lemon has decided to do at the moment of his decision to do so."

[i]7. If Lemon cannot do otherwise than tie his right shoe at 3 P.M. tomorrow, then, upon tying his shoe at 3 P.M. tomorrow, Lemon does not act freely.

8. From 5, 6, and 7, upon tying his right shoe at 3 P.M. tomorrow, Lemon does not act freely.[i/]
These last two points become moot on the basis of #'s 1-6.

Better...?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

Let's take a look at this thing and see if we can hammer out even more understanding.

1. Yesterday, it was true that God eternally believes P.
Let's change that to "it was true that God knew P."

2. Thus, since the past is now necessary, it is now necessary that yesterday it was true that God eternally ints become moot on the basis of #'s 1-6.

Better...?

To say that something is necessary; and to say that something is actual; seem to me to be two very different things. Besides, what sense does it make to say that the past is now actual? As Schopenhauer remarked, "the most insignificant present has over the most significant past the advantage of actuality".

The "now" used throughout the argument is redundant and can simply be dropped without affecting the argument.