Posted by mohammad rezaei on October 07, 19102 at 22:46:50:
Please, I want persian equal the (hard facts and soft fact)in this page:
How does this bear upon the problem of divine omniscience and human free will? Alston contends that if we adopt the "intuitive" picture of God’s knowledge of future contingents, the problem cannot arise, because God’s knowledge, in 1938, of what Hitler would do in 1939 was a "soft" fact about 1938, not a "hard" fact. The distinction between "hard" and "soft" facts has been used by Ockhamists to help get a grip on the very problem we have been concerned with. A "hard" fact about a time t is one which is, in a certain way, complete, or over and done with, at t, whereas a "soft" fact about t is a fact which is characterized in such a way that it is not complete at t, and could still be made not to be a fact by events occurring later than t. For instance, the fact that a baby girl was born in Vancouver in 1947 and named Avril Phaedra Douglas Campbell is a hard fact about 1947. But the fact that a baby girl who would become the first female Prime Minister of Canada was born in Vancouver in 1947 is not a hard fact about 1947; it did not "harden", or become completely factual, until Kim Campbell became Prime Minister in 1993. Kim Campbell could have prevented it from becoming a fact by choosing not to run for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party. This brings us to the point which makes the distinction between hard and soft facts a significant one for our purposes. It is only the hard facts about the past which humans are totally unable to change; insofar as we have the power to influence the course of events at all, we have the power to alter the corresponding soft facts about the past.
Sincerly,mohammad rezaei