Jesus' Mission....

[GrandizerII]

The citation of Wiki, is not a concession, but the deployment of the modal fallacy most definitely is.

What, in effect, Grandiser is claiming is that although some being has already "actualised" your choice of x, you do not necessarily have to make the choice of x.

This is self contradictory on it's face and can be dismissed.

ETA: Or alternatively, said being has evidently not "actualised" anything at all, since you still have the option to choose NOT x.

OR, "actualising" anything means something else to Grandiser.

I take it as a concession given how incredibly lazy it is. E.g. i dont feel like explaining my position so heres a wikipedia link. Lame.

And yes, ive heard this argument from christian apologists time and time again. It makes absolutely no sense.

I had already been explaining to others.

And what argument exactly did you hear from Christian apologists? The one I'm making specifically is a bit original, and not something they would themselves use (since it makes free will really sound like nonsense).

If you meant Modal fallacy, well, that's not exactly a Christian apologist argument anyway. That's a general argument which some do apply specifically against the incompatibility between free will and omniscience argument, but that's not all what it's applied to.

Anyway, as long as you understand what modal fallacy really means (for some reason, I have my doubts), all good.