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

0. Sovereignty Over Free Will Your initial assumption is correct. I could accept that the omnipotent god would have the power to give or take free will just as a computer programmer has the power to turn his programs off and on. 1. Rebuttal to Arguments for God’s Existence Numerous religions cite vague prophecies to justify themselves. In the case of the expansion of the universe this doesn’t seem to be a very good prophecy. Isaiah 40:22 and Jobs 9:8 are not necessarily expressing the expansion of the universe for they may be used truly in different contexts. Were the universe encompassing us but not expanding these statements would still explain reality. Just a cursory glance upward at the sky makes one feel as though the heavens are stretched over the earth like a tent. It is easy to re-interpret the bible to fit new information, but looking at it with more ancient eyes this seems like the kind of stuff a man in the 2000’s BCE could write. Especially considering in Jobs the way stretching out the universe is aesthetically, but not logically, paired with the idea of “treading upon the water”. This was considered a marvel in its time. Gilgamesh had to learn that the hard way. Today mortal men find it easy to accomplish the power of gods. I need only water skiis to tread water. That the tent above this earth is so is also self-evident, therefore not prophesised, but that the earth is a circle is certainly incorrect. Here is a far superior Quranic claim to the creation of the universe: “Have they not, those who disbelieve, seen that the heavens and earth were joined together (as one piece), then We (Allah) parted them.” This argument is fantastic because it firstly relates to how non-believing scientists have evidence that the universe began at a single point and argue thence the expansion of the universe as caused by god. Alas, the quran is filled with just as many bad prophecies or statements as the bible. In one case a miracle of knowledge is claimed that the quran says pain comes from skin nerves by citing how burning away the flesh necessitates new skins to be grown to endure the pain again. Yet later it’s claimed he’ll pour boiling water that scalds your insides. Ah well. How can true works be filled with bad passages? Just because of the broken telephone? Well, Islam thought otherwise. They figured god would have sent down a method of transmission which would be flawless. The argument might be human understanding is poor. Yet it’s equally as evident that religious works are as poor as any works of men. I’ve known many who have given bad testimony. I knew woman who truly believed in her religious experiences. Such as a raindrop falling through her glasses proving an easy-to-explain life experience a miracle. Christ appearing before her on her bed to tell her how her sons are going to hell but her daughter is going to heaven. Yet I’ve looked up many times in the rain and have had water splash around my glasses and into my eyes. And there’s the matter of her middle son who now endures truly horrible schizophrenia. If her son sees things too, but those things are definitely not real or Christian could it not be she has the same disorder as he? And if she can, cannot others? And how can you just as easily pass off all those experiences from other religions? Surely people’s lives are changed by religions of all sorts. But my life has been greatly influenced by Lord of the Rings and the Silmarilion. Does this mean Eru Ilúvatar is real? And how can you say Christianity validates itself by changing the lives of Christians, and deny that Buddhism changes the lives of Buddhists for the better to? But, come now. We are not here to verify the existence of god outside the arguments of this debate. Before other arguments to support god can be verified, god himself must stand before his own errors in logic. 2. The Apparent Dissonance in Pro Claims are the Dissonance in Biblical Claims It is sensible that you would reject claim 7 for not being biblical. But my claim is that the bible is fiction and logic can demonstrate so. If the logic defies the claim of the bible and still remains logical the counter argument that something is not biblical does not invalidate my claim. Potentially something may be both unbiblical and true. I would argue an image cannot be free; that is what makes it an image. If I have a picture of myself it resembles me,but it can only resemble me. It cannot be instead something different from me except that it is an image. And if the image is ugly it is either the fault of the photographer or because I am ugly. 3. Predetermination and Fate If I were to make something such that I could be called its cause then I would also be responsible for the effect of that cause. This is logically consistent with itself for we do not say guns kill people – people kill people. A gun is not a person though. What is a person? A person appears to be an agent caught in a context which acts accordingly to however. Its action are usually dependant on the context. For example: a person in a car approaching an intersection cannot choose there to jump off a bridge or fly away in a plane. He is restricted to a number of choices: drive left, drive right, drive forward, leave the car, don’t drive at all, etc… Each moment is caused by the previous one in a dance of causality. What’s questioned is: when a human is making a choice, is that choice made by a predictable, mechanical process? Or does the human have an immaterial soul with which to decide? You may argue in the case of the latter a human is not bound to a materialist account of choice. This makes no sense for god must know what his creation is and how it works and why, and if he made the souls of men then this must be no different. Material or immaterial, choice is determined. When he then thinks about the universe and creates it he must also know every other possible outcome for any humans. Being infinite and eternal he could create any universe or every universe. Yet he makes this universe, and therefore he causes this universe, knowingly, all of its events and choices included. Now, for my action to be “free will” it needs to not be determined. But if at the first moment of creation all that will happen is determined, then none may have the will to choose freely to do anything except that which god knows they will do. And though he could have made any universe, including one which he is not omnipotent of; he made this one of which he is omnipotent over. So it’s illogical that we can have free will at all, and if god chooses then that we have free will, he chooses not to be omniscient, which is to lack power over all knowledge which furthermore kills his omnipotence. Yet he claims both! Either he lies which is malicious, or the errors in his logic are because he is a human fabrication. Certainly such errors commonly occur when humans fabricate something. With regards to cause and control, and like the programmer, god needs not control every moment of reality in order for him to cause it. He causes every event by creating the first one and all it’s causal and metaphysical values. And if he causes me to act, I do not cause my action and therefore I am not free to choose. So when you say god is the root of choice, we choose to sin, we suffer for god’s love… I see no logic, merely an explanation, or a preference. I appreciate the effort. It’s better constructed than any opponent yet, as I predicted (which is not proof of my divinity lol). But you give arguments from god’s motivation and skirt around reasoning about free will, cause, predestination, etc... 4. Equivocation Fallacy I admit your claim to my fallacy was made with uncertainty, that this fallacy might not be the case and instead it might be another. Here’s a syllogism to demonstrate that this is not fallacious reasoning where I misuse the stated terms in one way in one case and another in another, but instead consistently logical reasoning: God predetermines what his creations on earth will do necessarily by omnipotence. Adam and Eve ate the apple on earth. Adam and Eve necessarily cannot choose not to eat the apple, because god knows they will. Therefore Adam and Eve’s choices to eat the apple were predetermined and not caused by free will. I think when this is paired with my arguments in 3. Predetermination and Fate, we see strongly that Adam and Eve nor anyone can control their fate before god. They can only fulfil the condition of his knowledge. Like the computer programmer, god need not control every moment of that reality. He need only create that reality and let it play out the way he knows it will. 5. Foreknowledge does not necessarily limit free will. I generally agree with the statement, but I disagree with the way you defend it. I once had a conversation with someone comparing an all-knowing passive observer with an all-knowing creator. We were discussing whether or not omnipotence always kills free will. We came to the conclusion that adding the term “creator” is what breaks free will. Because necessarily that which you create, you create to fulfill your knowledge of it. Whereas a passive observer will always know what will occur, but doesn’t cause or control it by virtue of being a non-participant. Similarly if the observer were not passive and interjected into reality, it could effect it and control it, but it would only ever be the cause of what it changed. That being has the virtue of being able to control parts of reality without fully inflicting death upon free will. This comes back again to my programmer analogy. God causes things, not by controlling them in the moment, but by declaring them eternally, acting to cause them, and allowing nothing else to occur except that which he knows. I re-iterate my conclusion… God is not a logical entity. He cannot exist as stated, and that makes it easiest to explain that he does not exist.