Free will

[The Grand Nudger]

Can the action "not happen"? 

Meatiest part of the edit.

In one sense, No. Why? Because all of the conditions for its happening are present and fulfilled. Being present and fulfilled, the conditions necessarily provide for the action. Fruit trees necessarily make fruit under certain conditions.

The conditions are irrelevant.  In an absurdist universe where there is no cause or condition..a true claim to foreknowledge is still true.  In a fatalist universe where the only cause or condition is that outcomes are fatalistic, a true claim to foreknowledge is still true.  In a closed loop of causal determinism, a true claim to foreknowledge is still true.  This is a demand of the claim regardless of the circumstances which led to it, even if there -are- no circumstances which led to it...which is why discussing those circumstances is an irrelevancy with regards to the claims being considered for compatibility.

In another sense, Yes. Why? Because, as determined to be conditional, it is equally possible that god does not create the conditions for the action to obtain, while still creating the thing. Fruit trees necessarily don't make fruit under certain conditions.

You're still focusing on what god does, but it's irrelevant.  If god made a claim to foreknowledge of the tree making fruit..it must make fruit...regardless of the circumstance, or the claim to foreknowledge is false.  This includes the unlikely possibility that no conditions of fruit set are met. It doesn't matter that the conditions are not met (and I;d be careful turning gods foreknowledge into conditional, temporal, causally deterministic knowledge, btw). If god said fruit will set, fruit will set. This is a necessity of the truth of the claim to foreknowledge without any regard for condition, cause, the state of the universe, what makes what happen, what god does or doesn't do, or will..free or otherwise. The necessity of the fruit setting may not be determined -by- gods knowledge or by any puppeteering on his part, but it is -still- determined and still necessary for the truth of the foreknowledge claim.


But in even proposing that there are two senses, such that a claim can be simultaneously true and false...we have flatly -demonstrated- the incompatibility of the claims made. In proposing conditional, temporal, and causally deterministic knowledge as a defense of their compatibility we are sacrificing -both- foreknowledge and free will at the altar of their defense. In proposing causally deterministic outcomes for a foundation or mechanism, we are sacrificing free will at the altar of foreknowledge. In proposing the possibility of some other outcome we are sacrificing foreknowledge at the altar of free will. There is -no way- this works together unless we change the "sense" of what were talking about between subjects - which is a massive logical chasm that no amount of scrambling will ever get us out of. Something is wrong with our concept of god's knowledge, our concept of our own free will, -or both-.