> Nothing is stopping that from happening on earth.

There is a lot that happens on Earth here to stop it—our sin nature, for one; (2) that many people don't want to submit to God; (3) that people have spiritually darkened minds and are spiritually blind. Many more.

> No, it's not. Choices are necessarily temporal.

The process of thought is necessarily in the framework of time, as language is necessarily within time. One cannot speak without one word preceding another. One also cannot think without one thought preceding another. But in God's reality, where He is not timeless but is outside of time and not subject to it, to speak of God knowing something "beforehand" is a misunderstanding. If God sees everything in an eternal present, there is no such thing as "beforehand."

> God can do anything logically possible.

Correct.

> You therefore have to show that a better world is logically impossible, which you have not done and cannot do.

Well, the conversation hadn't gotten to that point yet. If one entertain the ideal of "better world" than the one we have, it necessarily implies a standard by which that world must be measured. Once the standard is governing the equation, so also is theism in the question. And the God of the Scriptures revealed in creation that *this* world, with free creatures who accept or reject God's love, is the best means to the best possible world, namely, Heaven. There is no logical way to create a world where people are free to love God but not free to reject His love. If there were some other way to do it, God would have done it. That means we are living in the best possible world this side of eternity.

> This is not so. (Here, I'll show you what I mean about actually writing a response): In Heaven, every occupant will have voluntarily and freely submitted their will to the Father, so that the Father's will can be completely done without violating our free will.

Nothing is stopping that from happening on earth.

> "Advance" is really the wrong way to look at it.

No, it's not. Choices are necessarily temporal.

> ...which I've already claimed that any alternate world would have been inferior to this one. You didn't give an opposing reason, but rather on a one-word answer, which doesn't take your case anywhere.

God can do anything logically possible. You therefore have to show that a better world is logically impossible, which you have not done and cannot do.

> In contrast, if you have decided that you are a pure determinist, then you're not a pure determinist.

I'm not saying I'm a determinist. I'm saying your position is incoherent.

> Not even remotely possible.

Definitely remotely possible.

> False.

True.

> False.

True.

Y'know, if you want to have a discussion, (1) please use more than one word, and (2) support what you're claiming.

> This only makes sense if free will exists in heaven.

This is not so. (Here, I'll show you what I mean about actually writing a response): In Heaven, every occupant will have voluntarily and freely submitted their will to the Father, so that the Father's will can be completely done without violating our free will.

> If god created the world, knowing in advance what choices I would make

"Advance" is really the wrong way to look at it. "Advance" necessarily includes so aspect of the progression of time. But supposing, as is the case, that God can see all events as "present," not as future (in advance). In that case, He's always watching it happen in present time. There is no such thing as "in advance."

> and he could have created the world differently,

...which I've already claimed that any alternate world would have been inferior to this one. You didn't give an opposing reason, but rather on a one-word answer, which doesn't take your case anywhere.

> knowing in advance what different choices I would make in that world,

As mentioned, "in advance" is a misguided perspective.

> then my ability to choose is illusory.

Therefore, I'm showing, your ability to choose is not only real, but also essential. In contrast, if you have decided that you are a pure determinist, then you're not a pure determinist. If you believe your ability to choose is illusory, then you don't believe it for rational reasons. You believe it because you were determined to believe it. It is an impossible position to hold for rational reasons. The only way you can believe in determinism for rational reasons is if determinism is false. But if you are right that your ability to choose is illusory, then it doesn't make sense for you say your ability to choose is illusory, because if it is true, then you are assuming there are rational reasons for believing it. Fine, believe it, but if you're right, then your position is no better than the opposite, rationally, because you believe people believe things aside from any rational basis.

> I think it can be reasonably defended that this is the best of all possible worlds,

Not even remotely possible.

> There can possibly be reasons to allow suffering and evil in the world and the Creator still be good.

False.

> God can utilize evil without being personally unjust.

False.

> A world with free will is better than a world of robotic humanoids who really have no humanity (no reason, no love, no kindness, no science, no justice, no learning, no emotion).

This only makes sense if free will exists in heaven.

> So, how does the conclusion derive from the premises? I'm not seeing it.

If god created the world, knowing in advance what choices I would make, and he could have created the world differently, knowing in advance what different choices I would make in that world, then my ability to choose is illusory.

> can control all that we do.

If we have free will, God cannot control all that we do. The two states of affairs would be contradictory. So you can't make as your premise a contradictory state of affairs: we have free will but God can control all we do.

But perhaps, though it's not clear, you're claiming we don't have free will since God is omniscient. this, however, doesn't follow. Knowledge is not causative. Because I know something doesn't make anything happen, and never can. Suppose you and I were good friends, and I knew you loved chocolate, and every time we go somewhere you order a chocolate dessert. Every time. My knowing that never causes you to order chocolate, or to order something else. But supposing I was 100 times smarter than I am now. Nothing changes—my knowledge of you causes nothing in you. Knowledge isn't causative. But suppose I'm omniscient? No different. Knowledge isn't causative, knowledge isn't determinative. Only power is causative.

If God is timeless, and can see all things as present, then his knowledge is a matter of seeing, not of causing. Free will is still not only operative but legitimate and even necessary, and God's knowledge is complete. There is no contradiction to justify.

> We know that thanks to scripture that God can not only control our actions, but actively does

I would argue that this is incorrect. So let's talk about your example.

> The story of Nebuchadnezzar is good example as well as Daniel 4:28-37 where God was the one who moved his will and made him crazy.

I notice in Dan. 4.30 that King Neb is quite full of himself, puffed up with exorbitant pride based on his perception of his great power and great accomplishments ("Oh, look what I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I have built by MY power for MY majesty!"). This pride is not given by God but instead is generated from Neb's own heart.

Then we see that God punishes him for his pride. The question at hand is: Is a punishment a deprivation of free will or an overriding of it? If you have acted irresponsibly at work, and your boss docks your pay or passes over you at raise time, has he deprived you of free will? If, as a parent, you sit your child on the naughty chair for misbehavior, have you contradicted his or her free will?

Would God’s omniscience contradicts free will, and in addition to His omnipotence?

Since he knows all that we will do, and can control all that we do. We know that thanks to scripture that God can not only control our actions, but actively does e.g The story of Nebuchadnezzar is good example as well as Daniel 4:28-37 where God was the one who moved his will and made him crazy.