Tom, I'm done. Thank you for the study. I believe God is omnipresent and omniscient. He knows the end from the beginning. He chose to create FMAs, in spite of knowing some of them would rebel, reject redemption and die, because "He would establish His throne in righteousness."

Rosangela, another thing I wanted to comment on, even though some time has passed, has to do with the rarity of sin in the universe. You argued that sin wasn't so rare because earth was clearly or obviously (can't remember which word you used, one of these two) over-populated, hence other worlds would not have as many inhabitants as earth, and there weren't necessary so many other inhabited worlds.

First of all, the earth is only over-populated because of sin. Without sin, there would not have been frigid regions of earth, large uninhabited oceans, jagged mountains, etc. I'm sure you're aware of these statements from the SOP, so I won't cite them. We could estimate that earth would have at least 10 times the amount of inhabitable land that it has now, I would think, taking these things into account.

Secondly, without sin, the earth would be far more bountiful than it is, so it could produce a lot more to feed its inhabitants. There are 57,268,900 square miles on earth. Assuming 50,000,000 of these were inhabitable, that gives 32 billion acres, which is plenty of room for the inhabitants there are on earth.

Regarding the millions of worlds, there are perhaps a quintillion starts in the universe (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~gmackie/billions.html). If just 1 in a billion stars has an inhabitable planet, that would give 1 billion inhabited worlds.

I still had a couple of points I'd like to discuss with you, if that's OK. When I have time, I want to explain why the argument you made that I was speaking of was circular, as it seems clear to me you haven't understand my point. So I wanted to try to make that clearer. Plus there's a contradiction you made that I want to point out. Also you made the provocative statement that God has no options, which I wanted to discuss.

Thanks!

But how can God know for sure that sin won't rise again? You mentioned that after the great controversy everybody will already have chosen their side, but this isn't true. Many children before the age of accountability and many babies will be saved. These haven't had the opportunity to choose God's side. How does God know they won't choose sin?

The future consists of every possible thing that can happen. God sees all of these things, all at once. What these things are changes with the passing of time, as FMAs make decisions.

If all of the possible futures result in some given event, then God can say with 100% certainty that a given event will occur.

For example, Christ will come again. When will that happen? Nobody knows. EGW tells us that "Christ could have come 'ere now" starting from the late 1850's. It could have happened then.

She prophesied at a camp meeting (I don't remember the date, maybe in the 1860's, possible 1850's) that Christ would come before all of those present died; actually an angel told her this. But that didn't happen (yet more evidence for the open view, by the way). But it could have.

In 1903 I think it was, EGW wrote that Christ was disappointed that He couldn't come. 1888 was supposed to prepare the way for Christ's coming (you should read Jones and Waggoner, by the way; EGW recommends them highly ).

There were many times when Christ could have come. Even thought the date of Christ's coming is not certain, that He will come is. Why? Because God has seen that at the end of every possible future, eventually, Christ will come.

I'm giving this as an example of how God can say with certainty that a certain thing will happen, even though the specifics regarding that event haven't been determined yet.

God, seeing every possible future, has seen that after the judgment sin will not arise again.

MM, after thinking about it some more, I realize I did a poor job of explaining why your argument was circular. So please allow me to do a better job this time.

I asked you why God would choose to create beings that would sin. You responded that God is perfect, and only makes correct decisions, therefore His decision to create beings that would sin was a good one.

Here is why this argument is circular.

Your theory is that God sees exactly what any creature will do at any given point in time in the future. Therefore God knew the creatures He would create would sin. But I am doubting that God made this decision, because I don't believe that God sees the future as you believe He sees the future. You can't just say that God's decision to create beings He knew would sin was a good one, because whether God made this decision is the very point I am asking you about! That's why your response is circular.

To avoid a circular response, you need to explain *why* God's decision to create beings that He knew would sin was a good one, since if He actually made this decision, it would have to have been a good one, since God always makes good decisions. However, if this decision that God supposedly made was a poor one, then this proves your theory is a bad one.

Do you understand the point? I hope so. I did a better job explaining it this time. I hope you got it!

Sorry for the previous attempt, which I admit was not well explained.

MM, here is the contradiction you made that I alluded to in a previous post. You said at one point that God only had two choices, either create FMAs that would sin, or not create FMAs at all. However, later one, you said God did not have options at all. This is a contradiction! If God had two options, you cannot say He didn't have any!

Tom, you seem to think the fact FMAs chose to rebel is proof God did not know they were going rebel. Otherwise, He would not have created them. It would have been a bad decision to create them if He knew they were going rebel. And, since God doesn’t make bad decisions, it proves He did not know they were going to rebel.

You seem to think this way in spite of also believing inherent in free will is the possibility of rebelling. You also seem to think God made a good decision when He chose to create FMAs. You also seem to think God later regretted His decision to create them. You also seem to think God knows FMAs will never choose to rebel again. You also seem to think God cannot know the future choices of FMAs.

I haven't argued the fact that FMAs chose to rebel is proof that God did not know they were going to rebel.

I asked the question, why would God choose to create beings He knew would sin. Since the position you take regarding the nature of the future makes this question possible, you should have a good answer to this question. In response to this question, you simply assert that God, being perfect, has no options. This isn't a very convincing response!

That free will makes it possible for one possessing it to rebel does not imply that rebellion is certain, or even likely.

Regarding God's regretting the decision to make man (not FMAs!, man! I've pointed this out to you several times now), that's what it says in Genesis 6:6:



This is how the NIV puts it.

Regarding God's knowing that FMAs will not choose to rebel again, God has told us that this won't happen, so yes, I believe He must know this to be true, since He said it.

Regarding God's not knowing the future choices of FMAs, I would say God does not know *every* decision that FMAs will make in the future. This doesn't mean God doesn't know any of them. The episode with Peter (as well as many other incidents) makes this clear (i.e., that there exist future decisions that FMAs will make that God knows).

God sees every possible future that can occur. After the judgment, if no possible future results in an FMA sinning, then God can say with certainty that sin will not arise again.

It's similar to God's knowing that Christ will come again, even though there is no fixed date for that event. Every possible future results in Christ's coming again, although the exact date is able to be delayed (which, alas, we have done, since at least the late 1850's).