No, not for an omniscient being. If it is possible to know them, then God does know them. But if they don't exist, it's not possible to know them, so he can't.

Notice the placement of the modal operator, "necessarily" in the following sentences:

1) Necessarily, if you are married, then you have a spouse.
2) If you are married, then necessarily, you have a spouse.

What is necessary is everything that follows the modal operator, so notice that the scope of the modal operator in the first sentence is greater than it is the second sentence. What is necessary in the first sentence is, "if you are married, then you have a spouse," and that is a necessary truth. What is (purportedly) necessary in the second sentence is, "you have a spouse," but that (though perhaps true) is not a necessary truth but instead a contingent truth. Sentence one is true, but sentence two is false.

People confuse the two and think that sentence number two is true because sentence number one is true, but that is an error in reasoning and therefore a fallacy, and since it's an error of reasoning with modalities, it has come to be known as the modal fallacy.

Sometimes I feel like we're actually wrestling with language, not with eachother...

I was not aware that where the "necessarily" is placed, necessarily matters (I say necessarily matters, because I can think of cases where it could matter). To me, both of those sentences read identically. And I think this is often how people speak. I could see someone speaking each sentence and meaning the same thing.

So, is the modal fallacy really pointing out an error in reasoning, or an error in language? In my case, I was confused as I didn't know that the placement of "necessarily" changed the meaning of the sentence, and in my ordinary use of language, I've never made such a distinction. It makes me think that modal operators, in the English language, aren't clarified enough.

If God's knowing is certain, as God's knowing is infallible, how is this a no? I must do what God knows, as what he knows is certain. And with this logic, the answer to your question here:



is yes.



I actually meant I slipped into an irrelevance.

Notice the placement of the modal operator, "necessarily" in the following sentences:

1) Necessarily, if you are married, then you have a spouse.
2) If you are married, then necessarily, you have a spouse.

What is necessary is everything that follows the modal operator, so notice that the scope of the modal operator in the first sentence is greater than it is in the second sentence. What is necessary in the first sentence is, "if you are married, then you have a spouse," and that is a necessary truth. What is (purportedly) necessary in the second sentence is, "you have a spouse," but that (though perhaps true) is not a necessary truth but instead a contingent truth. Sentence one is true, but sentence two is false.

People confuse the two and think that sentence number two is true because sentence number one is true, but that is an error in reasoning and therefore a fallacy, and since it's an error of reasoning with modalities, it has come to be known as the modal fallacy.

people would think that sentence two is true because otherwise what does it mean? that if you are married you dont necessarily have to have a spouse?
you cant say 2 is false-you can only say that it is false that 2 is necessarily true!
what i dont understand is why use the word necessarily at all?

there seem to be two ways of using language...to me, using the word necessarily is a more poetic or aesthetic way of wording the sentence, and might be meant only to imply a shade of meaning such as the words 'of course' or 'certainly' would add. but essentially it would not be a limit or condition placed on the other words in the sentence. in fact, why did i just use the word 'essentially'?

in that case, people need to specify whether or not they are using words as they are defined in 'formal logic' or common everyday use. this happens all the time on the forum. there are some people who are so well versed in the definitions and use of words in formal logic that they arent able to understand a person who is speaking in layman's terms any more.

Emil, I'm a fan of propositional logic. I do, however, think it bumps against its limits at time. For instance, "the church is the bride of Christ." <__This is a sublime metaphorical statement,
recon

there seem to be two ways of using language...to me, using the word necessarily is a more poetic or aesthetic way of wording the sentence, and might be meant only to imply a shade of meaning such as the words 'of course' or 'certainly' would add. but essentially it would not be a limit or condition placed on the other words in the sentence. in fact, why did i just use the word 'essentially'?

in that case, people need to specify whether or not they are using words as they are defined in 'formal logic' or common everyday use. this happens all the time on the forum. there are some people who are so well versed in the definitions and use of words in formal logic that they arent able to understand a person who is speaking in layman's terms any more.

Salima makes a good point. I respect both logic and figurative language. I criticize logic not for its successes but for its transgressions into territory it is not equipped to deal with.

Actually, I think omniscience and free-will are a difficult match. I suspect the case made for either side will lean more on rhetoric than logic. I also suspect that most have emotional reasons for choosing one side or the other.

The problem is predestination. If God knows the future, how does this square with man acting freely in the present? I think it's a difficult issue.

Because, even if God knows, how does this prevent someone from freely choosing? God can simply know that I freely chose something. God's knowing doesn't take away my freedom, it just means my freedom is known by God.

I respect your opinion. Still, long long ago I was religious in the traditional sense, and the problem of free will and omniscience help corrode my faith.

The bible (at times) suggests that the majority of human beings end up in hell. Why would a majority choose the wrong path? Or why would 50 percent choose the wrong path? As soon as we subtract the contingent influences that a just God presumably allow for, what is left of this concept Free Will? And what can we make of a God who knowing creates beings that will for the most part suffer eternally?

What does "difficult match" mean? Are they compatible or not. Clearly knowing what someone will do is compatible with his doing it freely, since it can be known that he will freely do it.

If there exists a future fact that God has always known, then it must always have been an existent fact, otherwise God could not have known it. In that case, it must always have been a settled matter, so it is hard to see in what sense it could be regarded as contingent. So if there is a future human action that God knows with certainty, it could be argued that the action is necessary, and hence not free.