I've just watched the interview on "Closer to Truth" with WLC about How Could God Know the Future.I usually agree with WLC on almost everything, but this is one thing where I really oppose him.I just find middle knowledge unnecessary, as someone who believes in free will. Under Simple Foreknowledge, God knows the future, but does not cause it; that seems as more than a simple enough answer. But when you add in MK, you put God in a situation where he has to place people in certain situations where he knows they'll be damned, which seems like unnecessary baggage. Moreover, MK doesn't seem to be any more metaphysically, or biblically true then simple foreknowledge, and seems to limit free will, even if oh so slightly. It places you only two steps away from determinism.Moreover, under this view, God planned that Adam and Eve would sin (and in the case you take more of a metaphorical view of the story, he planned that we would fall from him), which raises serious problems.Lastly, why can't God bring about a world where all men accept him. I ask this because in MK, God brings about the world where the maximum amount of people are saved; but isn't it conceivable that God can bring about a world where all are saved? It just seems to bring up unnecessary questions that simple foreknowledge answers, and comes off as two sides of the same coin with predestination.