Free will

[Ignorant]

Great to get your thoughts, rob.

Right, I am aware the word has been used in this way. This isn't exactly wrong either, but it does ignore something important about the term "determine". A determination is certainly the outcome of a choice, but if it is the [i]outcome of a choice, then choice occurred. If an all-knowing god has a choice of outcomes, then there are more than one possible outcomes. Hence, my desire to properly and helpfully distinguish it from necessity.
[/i]

Choices? We're talking free will aren't we?  Similarly, it doesn't matter how many possible outcomes there are, a true claim to foreknowledge precludes -all- but the one to which it refers by necessity of the truth of the claim.  That the road forks in front of me, does not demonstrate that I choose, let alone freely will - anything-.   If x knows, prior to my choice, prior even to my birth, that I will go left..then my meeting that fork can only end in one outcome.  I will go left.  There is no freedom here, to go right.  There is a simply a road that goes right.

This claim is true, but it uses "necessary" equivocally. Here is why:

Consider some thing (T) (e.g. a fruit tree) doing some action (A) (e.g. making fruit) which depends on the conditions X, Y, Z.

We can say:
     If  all X, Y and Z, then T necessarily does A.


Now consider some thing (T) (e.g. a fruit tree) doing some action (A) (e.g. making fruit) unconditionally.

There may be no "if" in a true claim to foreknowledge (fatalism, absurdism, etc) - and in case of a true claim to foreknowledge and it;s relationship to free will, the "if" is irrelevant.  No "if he freely wills a, then a".  Only, "he will freely will a".

I heavily edited the original version, you might take a look at it first, and tell me if you would like a response to these thoughts anyway.