Theists: How can predetermined fate and free will coexist?

[Ignorant]

God creating reality, knowing every detail of what will happen the instant he creates it, is akin to him writing a very complicated story. He writes every word. He writes every murder, rape, AIDS baby and hurricane. He could have changed any of those details so that something else happens at that precise time, since he has an infinite numbers of scenarios to choose from and he has no boundaries (so we're usually told). [1]

In this story he decides to write, for some reason he thinks making some elements of it self aware is a good idea. [2] Let some poor bastards endure all the rape, murder, hunger and tragedy. Sure, they get to enjoy some good times too. [3] But that doesn't justify all the bad stuff he's choosing to write in. He knows the bad stuff will happen. He could have missed every and any single instance of it out. But he didn't. [4] Sadist.

Talking about what he's trying to achieve is laughable, because he has no obstacles or adversaries (who can stop him). He can write whatever ending he wants, without having to write in a bunch of shit first. [5]

Oh yeah, he then judges the characters in his story. Hmm, that character did a wank. Even though I wrote that he did a wank, I'll say it was his decision. I could have written other stuff, so that means he had free will. [6] I'll just burn him forever. Wow this is getting boring, I'll go play some god-basketball now.

---

Of course, this doesn't play out quite like this if God sets up the initial conditions but then isn't able to predict everything that will happen. So if you drop precognition, he loses at least a little of the responsibility. [7]

However, he has still set up the parameters of the reality so that suffering is possible. That's on him. There was no requirement to do that. [8]

Would you do that, if you were setting up a reality? [9]

1) Yes. His only boundary is himself, and everything that takes place (down to the finest detail) takes place according to the story he writes exactly how he writes it.

2) Yes. According to Christianity, he wrote this part because he wanted his story (i.e. creation and history) to participate and share in his own divinity (i.e. his own image). We hold that rationality is a participation in God himself.

3) Sadly, yes, this is true. But it is the whole story?

4) So far I'm with you. He knows the bad stuff will happen because he's the one writing the story about the bad stuff. He could have left them out, but he didn't. Why? We don't know. All we know is that at some point, he wrote himself into the story. He wrote himself in as the one who experiences all of those rapes, murders, hunger, and tragedies (he really suffers the experience of every particular rape, murder, hunger and tragedy) on the cross. He never wrote a single moment of suffering into the story without writing his own suffering of that same moment. 

In other words, he writes the story with bad stuff in such a way that HE suffers all of that bad stuff WITH us. "To suffer with" =literally= "to be co-passionate/sym-pathea". He is not merely compassionate in the sense that he understands our suffering, but he is actively compassionate. He suffers everything WITH us. He is God-WITH-us. Seeing as Christmas is right around the corner... Jesus is the Emmanuel: "God-with-us". 

Does that answer the question of "why" the bad stuff is in the story at all? No. 

5) Correct

6) I'm not sure that is how he "writes". He doesn't write the action, and then assign decision making capacity after the fact, and then conclude freedom later. It is more like, "that character is free to seek the good as he sees it. I freely show myself to that character as the ultimate good to seek in everything, and I do that in Jesus Christ. That character freely sees some good in manipulating the sexual organs in a way to obtain the good of sexual gratification without giving itself to another person. That character freely decides to seek that good in wanking. That character freely obtains that good in wanking, but that good obtained in this way will never be enough so as to fulfill the character's own sexual aspect of existence. It will always fall gravely short of what the character could obtain through the mutual, life-long self-giving to another person".

7) Yes.

8) Correct

9) I don't know. Maybe if I wanted to create people who could ask this question, suffering needs to be a potentiality? Who could even know if that is the case or not? There can't be any mercy if there is no compassion. There can't be any compassion if there is no passion (which is an old word for suffering). In a world without suffering, there is no mercy or compassion. I don't know if that would be a better world or not. Maybe a world without a need for mercy or compassion is better than a world with such needs?