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

Thank you, Rational Thinker, for your argument. I must admit, it's clear to see where the argument falls, but tricky to articulate why. Let's begin by examining the validity of each premise.P1: In order for free will to exist then there must be the possibility of at least two options to freely chose from.I have no qualms about this premise. One must be able to choose his/her actions or lack-thereof in order for that being to be considered to have free will.P2: If there is an all knowing being, then he knew I (along with every other human being) was going to do one specific set of actions and not another before I existed and had a chance to chose for myself.This is also true. Surely an omniscient deity would have known you would go to Wal-Mart next Tuesday to pick up eggs and milk long before your ancestors were even walking on two legs.P3: If God knew I was going to do action A before I was born, this means it's not possible for me to do action B after I begin to exist without the all knowing God being wrong.This premise is technically true, but leaves the conclusion invalid. I will go into more detail on this later.P4: If God knew something was going to happen before hand that didn't actually occur in reality, then God's establishment of knowledge was false, therefore it's not true that God is all knowing.Of course this premise is true and was granted upon the acceptance of this debate. It, therefore, might as well be absent, as all it states is a reiteration of the fact that our hypothetical omniscient deity is, in fact, omniscient.P5. If it was only possible for me to do one action and not another, this means I never actually had free will because free will requires the possibilties to chose more than one path. This means free will doesn't exist, if action B is not possible then that means I had to do action A because only it is possible if God's forknowledge is 100% accurate.This is the problem with my opponent's argument (tying this back into premise three). He says "If it was only possible for me to do one action and not another, this means I never actually had free will". This is true, but never did either of us say it was only possible for him to do one action. The closest thing to it is premise three which states it's only possible for him to do one action with God's foresight remaining accurate. Of course, God's foresight is always accurate, so it may be tempting to say that this one particular action God knows I will do is the only one which I can actually do, but this is not the case.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.In no discernible way does knowing what will happen equate to causing what will happen. For instance, have you ever found yourself in a conversation with a close friend or family member and knew how he/she would respond to a question before you even asked it? You can have intimate knowledge of a person's personality and behaviors, and therefore find that person's actions predictable, without being the cause of that person's actions.Similarly, you can know that an object will fall toward the Earth when you drop it (and even understand why) without being the cause of the object falling. The cause, in this case, is gravity; you merely have knowledge of gravity and therefore know how it will effect certain objects.An omniscient God would be comparable to this. It has a vast understanding of each human being's psychology, and therefore knows how each human being will respond to its circumstances without necessarily being the cause of those responses.Source[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...