The contradiction between free will and omniscience prove the Christian god a fiction.

I’m making the assumption we aren’t debating God’s sovereignty over free will. I don’t think any Christian disagrees that the maker of heaven and earth can take away your freedom if he wishes, as it is clearly written that pharaoh’s heart was hardened during the exodus period showing that God clearly has the ability. The reason why we believe free-will exist is because he has enabled this feature within us. We're just debating essentially that free will is incompatible with omnisciene, and that this incompatibility would be proof in disproving the christian view of God. 1. Defense of God’s existence Argument from Prophecy. Well for a defense of God’s existence I’m going to argue that the Bible does assert God’s existence, it even has records of God’s conversations with mankind. After all the Bible has been pretty accurate with it’s prophecy, which is why I’m inclined to believe it. It has predicted the return of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6) It has postdicted the expansion of the universe long before it was discovered to be true (Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22), the coming of skeptics that are uniformists (2 Peter 3:3-4). There are more, but I want avoid Argument Galloping here, so I'll just present a few for now. Argument from Testimony. It’s not just the Bible but a lot of people testify to God’s existence, not just that, but also that he has changed them in a good way. Anyone who has been to a church or has read Christian literature knows this to be true. Tell me, do you disagree that people’s lives have been changed by God? 2 Dissonance on Pro’s Position A) Pro’s Steps I disagree with step 7”: Adam and Eve can’t have free will. This I think would be unbiblical. Mainly because when God created man, he made them in his image. The thing is, God is free, so logically his image is free. While step 6 is sort of correct in the sense that God is the root of the cause of Adam and Eve, but they didn’t sin because God decided them to, it’s because he gave them his image, which is what enabled them to do it. Step 5-6 is a little confusing, and I think is making the fallacy of equivocation (or atleast some fallacy, it doesn't soind right). I don’t disagree that many things in reality are determined in the past by God, for example the shape of the earth and the laws of the universe were determined by God without any input from the creation’s free will (as free will didn’t exist among creation back then). But in step 6 predetermined I think is used in the sense of controlled the events, which I don’t think is what happened. I think the event was being controlled by the free-will agents themselves not necessarily by God. So predetermination here would mean a little more like pre-allowed, as he allowed these agents to play out their own course here that they determined. I disagree with the conclusion. Illogical, not really. I subscribe to the idea that God knowingly caused all sin (atleast he’s the reason why sin exists at all), after all he is the maker of the good, the bad, and the ugly… and he is all knowing. So this must be logically true. So the question is what causes God to let sin exist? You might say because he’s a malice God. But I don’t think that. I think it not because he’s malice, but because he wants people to have free-will. So yeah, God is the root of the problem of sin, but it’s not done out of malice, he does it so that you’re free to be you, because he loves you. Does that make any sense? In summary, the reason why you sin is because of free will. The reason free will exists is because of God. God is at the root of the problem, but he doesn’t do it out of hate but love. B) Foreknowledge does not necessarily limit free will. Notice here that my argument is slightly different then rebuttle type 2. I’m not saying that an all-knowing being can’t influence people’s free-will, on the contrary, I think the being can… However he is not required to limit free will. An omniscient being not only knows the casual relationships of our entire continuum (“foreknowledge”), but the abstract relationships of everything. When I use the term abstract I’m talking about things like free will, numbers, ideas, etc... You know, the metaphysics. So if God is aware of your own autonomy all the time, he may choose to interact in such a way as to not violate it. In Bill Clinton’s case, he may have chosen to not interact with the outcome because he may be aware that Bill Clinton is an actual individual capable of making his own decisions. Think about it, maybe the reason why God let that happen is because Bill Clinton is actually a free-will agent, not an actual robot. It just simply depends on the omniscient being sense of ethics, rather he plans on using his omniscient to abuse affairs of free will or not.