<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Fatalism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.holycyclops.com/2008/05/14/on-fatalism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.holycyclops.com/2008/05/14/on-fatalism/</link>
	<description>Devoted to Truth</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:27:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Holy Cyclops &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Fatalism and Foreknowledge</title>
		<link>http://blog.holycyclops.com/2008/05/14/on-fatalism/#comment-122</link>
		<dc:creator>Holy Cyclops &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Fatalism and Foreknowledge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.holycyclops.com/2008/05/14/on-fatalism/#comment-122</guid>
		<description>[...] Here, I argued that whether or not to accept the fatalistic argument really boiled down to a choice to how to view future events&#8212;as already fixed or not as already fixed. Propositions about future events might be taken as already having truth-values, or they might be taken as taking on truth-values only at the time of occurrence of those future events. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Here, I argued that whether or not to accept the fatalistic argument really boiled down to a choice to how to view future events&#8212;as already fixed or not as already fixed. Propositions about future events might be taken as already having truth-values, or they might be taken as taking on truth-values only at the time of occurrence of those future events. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
