If God's past belief about a future free act is a soft fact ontologically dependent on that future act, the fixity-of-the-past premise in the fatalist argument is false, not merely challenged.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Fatalism / Fatalist argument(the philosophical position being analyzed): The view that the future is already fixed and determined, so human choices and actions don't actually matter or change anything.
Fixity-of-the-past premise(a key assumption in the fatalist argument being questioned): The assumption that facts about the past cannot be changed, influenced, or undone by anything that happens later.
Free act / Free will(describes the type of act being discussed): An action that you choose freely, not forced or predetermined by anything else; you could have genuinely chosen to do something different.
God's omniscience(in philosophy of religion): The traditional religious and philosophical concept that God knows everything, including all future events—which creates a puzzle about whether humans can have free will.
Ontologically dependent(as used in metaphysics): Relying on something else for its existence; not being able to exist on its own without that other thing.
hard fact(Ockhamist distinction between types of facts about the past): A past-tensed statement P(x)q where q does not depend on the future
soft fact(Philosophy of time and foreknowledge): A fact expressed by a proposition that is verbally about one time t but is really (in part) about a later time.

1 topic