No, it doesn't.


Well, no, there isn't an imposed family planning in Brazil.


Precisely. Twelve million families are being benefited by this plan, which amounts to approximately 50 million people. The number of votes involved in such a large segment of the population does make a difference.


I'm not sure I understood your point here, but I think that, from the human point of view, all future events could be described in terms of probabilities.

Considering that we are talking about a developing country here, I would suppose the options are not between regular school and homeschool. I would guess the options are rather between school and either begging on the street or working for money. Voting for love was one of two distinct and separate options. Unlike determined "free will", two options mean that more than one option have the possibility of having the correct solution.

Except that in a world where the contents of the future are as closed as a tv rerun, concepts such as "elicit" are meaningless. You either adore and are confident in God, or not, based on what the script says, nothing more and nothing less.

Not at all.

It is accurate and logically sound to either say that God knowing the future like history makes you fully free to chose either of one (1) option for each choice you have. Or you could say that the future contains at least two(2+) possibilities for each choice we arrive at and free will means the ability to pick either of the two or more options available.

Premise 1) The outcome of every choice is known. (Pete is predestined for damnation)
Premise 2) Pete gets the gospel presented to him.
Deduction = Pete rejects the gospel.

Premise 1) The outcome of every choice is open until the choice is made. (Jesus came to offer salvation for all men; God does not wish that anyone die)
Premise 2) Pete gets the gospel presented to him.
Deduction = Pete may end up either accepting or rejecting the gospel (at least there is a possibility that he accept it here)

It could hardly be fixed if we can hasten it. Also, it could hardly be fixed if Christ could have come in the past. That's obvious. If the date is fixed at, say, Christmas 21XX, then Christ could not have come in the 1800's.



Or you're just understanding it wrong. This isn't getting at a moral question. A moral question is involved if you assume that you're wrong, and explain what the moral implications are. It's not, "If I'm wrong, then God must be lying, which is immoral."



God's will has been resisted. God sent a message in 1888 for the express purpose of preparing the world for the coming of Christ, but the message was resisted on the part of our leadership, to a great degree, and that prevented Christ from coming. We're told that Christ is longing for a representation of His character in His people, and when that happens, He will come again. It's not a lack of heavenly influence that retards Christ's coming, but intransigence on the part of His people.

I'm not seeing what the moral question is here. Let's assume I'm correct, and the date is not fixed, and we really can impact when Christ comes, as COL 69 looks to be saying. What's the moral problem with this?



Of course. That's why I make that clarification each time I make the point that there's a logical contradiction between the idea that the future is single-threaded and free will. If one doesn't hold to the libertarian definition, there's no contradiction.

However, the common definition of free will that SDA's hold is the libertarian one. Most Adventists understand free will to mean that they can impact the future by their choices.



Yes, the same question arises. If God was certain Adam would sin, why would He prefer to create Adam as opposed to some other human He was certain would not sin? Why prefer for there to be sin on earth, as opposed to not having sin on earth?

Actually, there are many who believe this, that Jesus couldn't fail. Just not Adventists. At least in general. That's because we believe that Jesus Christ was really tempted, and could really have sinned. But not everyone believes that. In the case that Christ could not have sinned, then what you're saying could be the case.



It's not a question of God's ability, but of what reality is.



No, of course not. It doesn't alter anything, it just means that we are powerless (as is God) to change anything about how things will play out.



Again, the issue is not one of things be altered, but of not being able to effect change. That is, we cannot change the past. But can we change the future? If God views it like history, then we can't.



I'm not disagreeing with the logic. The logic you mentioned isn't speaking to the point.

I'm never suggested, and, to the contrary, have made clear on dozens of occasions, that I'm not asserting that God's knowledge of an event changes anything. It doesn't cause anything to happen. It doesn't alter what people do.

It has logical implications in regards to what the future is like; namely, that it is fixed. So the time for Christ's coming is a fixed date, and anything that happens in the future is as fixed as anything that happened in the past. This has implications regarding free will, and other points that I've raised.

Suppose that future is not fixed, but is open, and God knows this to be the case. How is God ignorant in this case? Or, how is He not omniscient?

Doesn't being omniscient mean that God knows everything that is, in accordance to how it actually is? By wanting God to see the future as fixed, the future would actually have to be fixed. If the future is open, and God knows it as open, then how is He not omniscient? Omniscience doesn't require knowing things that are false.

If the future is fixed, then concluding that God knows the future like history is not illogical. However, if the future is fixed, then free will (under the libertarian definition) is impossible. That is, if the future is fixed, there is nothing anyone can do (including God) to alter it, and that is contrary to the definition of "free will" as being able to effect a chosen option from 2+ available options.

Is ignorance limited to not knowing something knowable? Or if you don't know something which isn't knowable, is ignorance still involved?

Not really. But maybe you are dismissing it by saying it's a mystery that you don't know. Or maybe you are saying that Tom concluded correctly which would mean you believe God preferred a universe that had sin in it to one that didn't. (Which, at first, I read it meaning God preferred having a universe where He preferred it didn't have sin to one that actually didn't have sin)
And that is why God created evil.