This text explores the concept of divine foreknowledge (praescientia) and its relationship to necessity and contingency. It criticizes the medieval tendency to derive absolute predestination from the notion of foreknowledge, which effectively eliminates randomness and free will. The author identifies two fundamental errors: a methodological mistake of deducing reality from concepts without proper validation, and a substantive error regarding the nature of causality. The text argues that if God possessed absolute, detailed foreknowledge of all events, the act of creation would be redundant and meaningless. Instead, creation should be understood as an experiment. Like any experiment, its significance depends on the outcome not being predetermined or known in advance. Consequently, foreknowledge must be viewed as relative. This framework also redefines predestination as a relative mission or calling, initially given to the subject non-objectively, which then unfolds and becomes specified through the subject's active participation and externalization. This perspective restores purpose and dynamic agency to the created world.