A little on Paradise Lost

I really like what Bobby was touching on here with "Satan falling for us". The notion of immanence, God's transcendance of time and space such that He knows every that will ever be (omniscience), suggests that Satan's defiance and the ensuing war in Heaven, the corruption of man, etc--everything that follows in that causal chain of events is somehow part of God's great "plan". Now, taking for granted that God loves mankind and such, we can assume that this chain of events is the best possible fate for mankind. So then why do we even question any of this? Why did Milton feel the need to write an epic poem in an attempt to justify the ways of God to mankind? Satan tested out the water, and the water bit him in the ass. He then corrupts mankind, so mankind gets the boot out of Eden. BUT... we're given the gift of knowledge with that swift kick in the ass (kinda bitter-sweet really). Now the thing with free-will/freedom of choice, is that it works much better when you have knowledge to back up those choices (what's choice when you don't know the consequences?). And since God is omniscent, He must have known this too, thus He planned the whole thing with Satan corrupting us and all, so we would end up better off in the end.

Ok... am I missing anything here? There's gotta be more to this... I mean, it's a real nice idea--that everything is as it is because God is omniscient, transcends time and space, but most importantly because He Loves us, and therefore He has chosen/ordained the best possible fate for mankind through use of his omnipotent power. Love rules all, through God. What's left to question??

Please note, that I am neither arguing for nor against the existence of God, or any other religious beliefs. I am merely questioning, that given the premises behind Paradise Lost, how can anyone who follows Christian beliefs come to any other conclusion than what I have presented here?--That love is supreme. So now we are presented with a problem: if this is the case, then our debate does not rely upon polemics or validity of arguments, but rather upon religious disposition. Unless of course we are all atheists, this could be a problem. Someone, please tell me that I'm wrong, because I refuse to have our debate reduced to the subjectivity of individual religious beliefs!