If it could be proven that EDF is rationally compatible with the ability to do otherwise then that would only prove that EDF is compatible with an open future.
The ability to do otherwise is a necessary condition for most of the concepts that make up what we consider to be the Christian faith. Concepts like, morality, justice, righteousness, love etc all depend entirely upon the ability to do otherwise. That is to say that all such concepts would be rendered meaningless if the principle of alternative possibilities (i.e. "PAP") is false.
The PAP states that agent S is responsible for its being the case that p only if S could have made it not the case that p.
Presume that T = You will answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am.
(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
source
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
source
If that line of reasoning is faulty then demonstrate the fault. Otherwise, in order to maintain a rational doctrine, you should concede the point and adjust your doctrine accordingly.
The difference is that a videotape was made at the time the choices were being made and EDF happens BEFORE they are made. That's a huge difference as I hope the above reasoning demonstrates.
The point might be seen if you consider whether it is possible for a person to undo that which happens on the video tape? The necessity of the past is a well established principle. You cannot not do what you've already done and so, as you say, EDF would be similar in that you cannot not do an action that is foreknown. Thus EDF and free will are mutually exclusive concepts because EDF implies a condition that necessarily falsifies free will. The only way around it is to redefine free will, but to do that means destroying the meaning of those other concepts I mentioned like morality, righteousness, justice and love. Either that or you'd have to start redefining all of those concepts as well, as Calvinists actually do in some cases. Ackham's razor is getting sharper by the minute!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
