An Omniscient God and Human Free Will are Incompatible

Dispute Over Definition First off, this is my debate. As the Instigator I reside the sole authority over definition. My rule stated that all definitions are to be used in context. Your definition is not in context of the resolution, and I already demonstrated why that it is last round (which you didn’t even respond to). I then clarified the context of contingent, which is supported by the definition of free will. You also failed to respond to that. My opponent’s definition has become dangerously close to calling a Kritik on free will, which is against my rules. I supported the definition I gave for contingent within context of the debate, something my opponent failed to do. As my opponent is trying to push for a noncontextual definition of contingent, it is actually he who is violating the rules I set out for this debate. Contradiction My opponent gives an analogy supporting his use of the word contingent, but the analogy does not support his definition at all; it actually supports my definition. My opponent definition of contingent – Subject to chance My definition of contingent – Not necessary “You flip a coin. Your decision was to flip that coin. God knows you are when you are going to flip the coin. Your "choice" to flip the coin does not have any chance in it because God knew you would flip it. “ This is exactly what I am arguing against. I already responded to this last round. Me arguing against this is an example of my definition of contingent. That is, it is not necessary that person A choose action B because of future C. “The outcome of which side lands face up is irelevant to this debate. “ That is what I am arguing, but your definition of contingent implies that events subject to chance (such as a coin flip), are relevant to this debate. This is why I disputed your definition in the first place. I argued that free will is not just something subject to chance, it is also conscious. Something subject to chance implies that there is no conscious process in the action. “Your concious choice is to flip the coin, not choose the outcome. Trying to state you have any concious decision in the outcome is absurd.” Failure My opponent focused almost his entire response on the definition of contingent, which honestly isn’t even that big of a deal and after analyzing his analogy it would almost seem as if he agrees with my position. Pro literally uses one sentence to respond to my entire argument. His sentence is an analogy and it is just a reiteration of what I have already argued against. “In the Coke/Pepsi scenario, if you choose Coke, and then decide to drink half, put it back, and then drink half of the Pepsi, God knows this will happen. He knows every time you will "change your mind" because he has all knowledge of the future.” As argued earlier, I am not saying that God does not have foreknowledge of actions. What I am arguing is that actions are conscious and unnecessary (and therefore are actions of free will). You, as the bearer of the burden of proof must show that humans do not have free will when they are making choices. In order to do that you must prove the follow: - Foreknowledge causes actions - Actions are necessary because of foreknowledge You have not done either, therefore failing to uphold your burden of the proof, nor have you disputed my argument at all. You have stated that God has foreknowledge of actions, but you have not connected this notion with what is necessary to argue in order to prove that that humans do not have free will.