The Idea of an omniscient God contradicts the idea of human free will

Rebutting my opponent's refutation"The logical fallacy my opponent is committing is Reversing Causation [1], which occurs when someone confuses cause and effect. My opponent seems to think that because an omniscient God knows X, X must necessarily happen, when in reality (or, at least, in our hypothetical reality) the reverse is true. Because X will happen, an omniscient God must necessarily know X."I think it's fair that the above represents the main point behind my opponent's refutation, he seemed to agree with me on most of my contentions. Anyway, the ironic part about me being accused of committing a fallacy, is my opponent is committing the common logical fallacy of confusing cause and effect. ***Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form: A and B regularly occur together. Therefore A is the cause of B. This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.***http://www.nizkor.org...My opponent is under the assumption that my position is God knowing person 1 will do X [A] is the cause of it being certain that person A Does X [B], and he is claiming that his position is that the certainty of person 1 doing X [B] is the cause of God knowing person 1 will do X [A]. The problem is he is neglecting to see the cause of both A and B (which the fallacy requires), which is the exact information regarding the past, present, future being available in the first place (without this, God could not be omniscient, and this information could not exist if free will did).Basically, my opponent doesn't comprehend the fact that if free will exists, then the information regarding the future should not exist and be available to God. Re-Cap:There is a correlation between:The fact that person 1 will do X [B], and God knowing Person 1 will do X [A]The cause of both A and B is the information of X being available before X actually happens. If the information wasn't available, God couldn't know it, and the action wouldn't be set in stone. Therefore, my opponent has indulged in the common fallacy known as confusing cause and effect.I believe I have adequately rebutted his refutation to my argument. Reiteration of certain pointsCon makes the fatal mistake in this debate by ignoring the fact that whatever happens before I exist is not based upon my free will while I exist, it's based on the information of the future existing to be abailable to a this being to know in the first place. Basically,God could have all the capacity to be omniscient but without the information of the past, present, and future existing, he wouldn't be..And the only way this information could exist is if free will didnt exist.In theory, from the second I was born every act I engaged myself in was with the contstraint of necessity if this information was available to God before hand. Definition of free will re-hashed Noun: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." http://oxforddictionaries.com...Re-Cap If free will exists, then God would have the restraint of not having access to the information (which couldn't exist if free will did) which would then make him omniscient. If free will didn't exist, then it would be plausible for the information to exist which would then make God omscient. Conclusion:1) My opponent's claim that I committed the logical fallacy of "reversing causation", was false2) My opponent commited the logical fallacy of "confusing cause and effect" (reasoning in conclusion 3)3) The fact that person 1 will do X [B], and God knowing Person 1 will do X [A] = A and B a) A and B are both caused by the information of the past, present, and future existing (which my opponent neglected to acknowledge)Sources [1] http://www.nizkor.org...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...