 Philosophers have responded to this problem in several different ways. One obvious way to respond is simply to claim that there are no future contingent events, despite appearances to the contrary. Different people have taken this approach for different reasons. Some are attracted to the idea that every event has a prior sufficient cause (see the entry on  causal determinism).  Others believe that the idea of free choice does not require anything like real contingency or the possibility of doing or intending otherwise (see the entries on  compatibilism  and  free will).  Still others believe that God’s providential control over the world is so thorough and detailed that nothing is left to chance, not even the apparently free choices of human beings (see Calvin 1536, Carson 1981, Feinberg 1986, Furlong 2019, and White 2019, along with the entry on  divine providence).  So one possible response to the difficulty here is to give up one half of the problem by denying that there are any future contingent events in the first place. To return to our example from the Christian tradition, when Jesus truly prophecies that Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows, there is no philosophical puzzle as long as we do not claim that Peter’s denials are contingent events.