Question

I asked this a few days ago, and because of the Arab takeover of the site the question was deleted.
Rabbi argued that one cannot say that God exercises providence through human choices [by causing people to do things according to His will, and thereby influencing reality], because that intervention too counts as a change in nature: a human being is free in his decisions, and then God comes and compels him to do something specific.
My question is: why can't one say that God does not force His will, but only influences the person to want to act in a certain way, and the person, by his own choice, chooses in line with the side he prefers? In this way there is no change in nature at all, but only the introduction of an external cause before the person, on the assumption that the person will choose as the one introducing it wants.
[Just as an advertiser does not force a person, so too God does not force, but rather gives him a reason to choose according to His will].
And although there is heavenly intervention here [which in principle one could reject], there is no breaking of any law of nature here.
To emphasize: the intention is not that God intervenes in the circumstances [that is, that He creates a certain real-world result in order to prod the person to act], which would also require a change in nature, but rather that He intervenes in the person's considerations, influencing the person's consciousness with a desire to do a certain thing.