God`s omniscience contradicts the notion that we have free will.

I thank Con for their opening argument and rebuttal in a round that was not meant for rebutting but only for opening arguments. I don't mind this however. I like it when they attack me right away. REBUTTALSMy opponent claims that there is no EXPLICIT contradiction in the existence of an all knowing God and free will. This cannot be simply asserted. It needs to be soundly argumented. So lets rebut his arguments and expose why they are not sound by showing why the premises are false. Con wrote:"Hang on how did Pro go from Gods KNOWLEDGE that Pro will choose A to therefore Pro has NO CHOICE but to choose A ?. Pro makes an unjustified leap here."Knowledge about some event that is prior to the event is called foreknowledge. Foreknowledge : Knowledge of an event before it occurs. Now the definition of free will I gave is that it is "The ability to choose between different possible courses of action. " Now if God foreknows that I will choose A then I cannot choose B since it would mean that God`s foreknowledge is wrong and it cannot be wrong by definition of omniscience. This means that B is not possible course of action. It is impossible to choose B since God foreknows that it wont be chosen. So there is no choice to be made. So Conclusion is that Pro has NO CHOICE but to choose A. If A is the only choice to choose then you have no choice but to choose it. So it is "no choice" by definition since there are no alternative possibilities to be chosen. Now It can be counter argued that this is not an argument against with free will but against the ability to execute it since there can never be a true choice to be made.But I argue that if there is no possibility for you to execute your ability then that ability is non existent. For example if I can travel faster then light but lets say some law of physics or the special relativity renders me unable to do so then I dont really have that ability do I ? If my ability presupposes impossible circumstances then the ability is impossible. So conclusion is - NO CHOICE = NO FREE WILL Con wrote: "Even if Pro chooses A, and even if God knows Pro will choose A before it happens (from Pros point of view) that does not prove that Pro could not have chosen B. You could of chosen B................but you won't."The problem is that if your future action is known then that means the future is determined already. Since it is the only way to be known. If it wasn't determined then its logically impossible to have definite knowledge about some future event.So if it is determined then you cannot have free will since you cannot act the way it was not determined for you to act.Pro argues that you could have chosen B... but you wont. If God knows what you will choose before you do it then it is only the illusion that you could have chose B. B was never the possible option if it was known not to be chosen prior to the choice actually happened. Take this example: If I know that what lottery ball numbers will be winning ones. Is there any other option for those balls to be picked ? If I know that you will do A is there any other option for you to do ? Con wrote:"There is no all knowing God, and assume free will exists, you go to the fridge, in the fridge is a Pepsi and a coke, you choose one, in this case a coke.Consider the same situation but an all knowing God exists, you choose the coke. Does the fact that God knew before you knew you would choose the coke mean that free will suddenly disappears or is logical incompatible with the existence of an all knowing God ? no."Yes. Because the only way for God to know what will be chosen is if it was already determined. Also in the example with all knowing God you didn't chose Pepsi since you could not choose Pepsi. If I know that someone is gonna punch me then that must happen. If that must happen then any other option is not possible.Con wrote:"Again no God and you go to the fridge, coke or Pepsi, after staring into the fridge for a bit you take the coke.Consider the same situation but this time an inter dimensional alien life form called Bob exists. The thing about Bob is, is that he has the ability to slide back and forth on our time continuum as he pleases. So you choose the coke, but Bob already knew that before you did, you see he leaped ahead 30 seconds to see what you were going to do.Does the fact that Bob knew what you were going to do before you did it some how negate the existence choice ? no."First if Bob knew that I will make some choice then He already knows the future before He goes in the future. But lets say for the sake of argument that He was in the future and saw you choosing coke. Then He comes back at present and He knows what will happen. Ok so this scenario supposes that leaping among future and past and present is possible. This means that you can observe the effect and come back before the cause even caused that effect. So this is the case of a non-linear causality which we never observed and this poses so many paradoxes. This basically allows the effect to go back in past and cause itself. This is ridiculous to the extend of it being logically impossible. And more importantly it means that future is determined. Its like a movie. In an already recorded movie do actors have a free will ? If future is known by Bob and if it is possible to travel to past from future then everything is already been determined. It like rewinding movie from the end to the start. Only possible if the whole movie is being already recorded ( determined) The person in the future might have the choice to make ( the person that made a choice prior to Bob observing and knowing the outcome). But that instant when Bob observed it and gained knowledge about it, then the past is effected by that. This person in the present ( when Bob comes back from the future with newly acquired knowledge) is now unable to do what He didn't do in the future. Any option not being chose in the future is not possible to be chosen. So no free will. Con wrote: "Pros argument rests on a faulty assumption, that in order for free will to exist it can only do so if there is lack of knowledge of what a free will choice will be before it happens."You need to show why the assumption is faulty. But yes, "in order for free will to exist it can only do so if there is lack of knowledge of what a "free will choice" will be before it happens." Because:A. Such knowledge can only be acquired in a deterministic model of universe.B. Non linear causality poses so many paradoxes that is may as well be logically impossible. This theory is cherry picked on a bases of it fitting the argument by Con and it stands on no empirical grounds. ( side note "free will choice" is a tautology .)C. It is not necessarily the knowledge that causes you not to have free will. Its the fact that this knowledge can exist that causes you not to have free will. Since it implies deterministic universe.Conclusion of round 3: The problem is when you try to fuse the natural world with concepts of infinite anything. You get those paradoxes. For example God by having infinite knowledge presupposes that He must know everything that will happen (future). How can this be so ? Has the future already happened ? Was is always that way so it never even happened ? In our physical reality we can only make a predictions. If we can predict something 100% that means that this something operates under set of rules that it must inevitably follow and by which it can only result in that one predicted outcome (no free will). So I state those three options :1. God knows future because it is knowable - DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE- We don't have free will2. God predicts our actions with 100% accuracy- We act like robots by following our, not chosen by us, set of rules to make the illusory choice. God knowing those can predict our actions with 100% accuracy.- We don't have free will3. God cannot know the future - God is not omniscient. I look forward to Cons reply.