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

Thank you Con.Con is absolutely right that there is no EXPLICIT contradiction is a statement that God`s omniscience contradicts the notion that we have free will. I was not aware of the context of the usage of the word EXPLICIT here. This however means nothing for this debate and is not important by itself since it is not counter-argument and all my arguments are focused on explaining why and how omniscience contradicts free will. Never I have asserted or claimed this without supporting it with arguments/premises. Con is trying to shift BoP on me with this. I don't mind that. It is on the judges/voters to decide if his defensive style and counter arguments are good enough for him to win this debate. Lets see now what counter arguments Con has offered and lets see if they are sound. Its important to note that this is the last round so no new arguments are gonna be made here (same is expected from Con). Only extensions of the old arguments and rebuttals are gonna be made here.REBUTTALSCon wrote:" At the core of Pros argument is about how if a choice is made but that choice is known beforehand (From the choosers point of view) with 100% metaphysical certitude this entails that no free will choice of A is even possible. I still maintain this is a non sequitor.Recall how Pro argues..."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."Notice the conflation between the impossibility that God can be wrong about you are going to choose A and the impossibility of being able to choose B.That was the purpose of my thought experiments to try and show more clearly these are two very different things, knowledge of choice A (even before it happens from the choosers point of view) vs the free will choice made in the present (from the choosers point of view)."This is a bit hard for me to understand (the argument). Why is there a conflation here ? Omniscience also means that God cannot be wrong in his knowledge. So if God knows that you are gonna pick A how can you pick B ? This is very simple question that should be addressed properly by Con. Con asserts that there is a God that has his point of view which knows everything that is gonna happen in the future and then separate point of view of chooser that can choose freely between two or more possible alternatives. How is this possible. If this God is in every instance of present time (every point in time, future or past) and in each of those He knows what you are gonna pick then there was never a point of time when you made that choice with real possibility to chose freely between two or more possible alternatives. You were always determined to choose what God always knew that you would choose.I understand the purpose of Cons thought experiment. This is why I rebutted it.I explained why alien example was flawed analogy since with Bob that can travel to future and past, there was a point of time where the result of your choice was not known by Bob and that time your choice was not contradicted by Bobs knowledge. This is not the case with God since God always knew your every choice in every point of time. That instant that Bob acquired that knowledge about you choosing A and traveled to the past that past was determined already with all the choices made in there.The mere possibility of time travel and knowing the future means that that physical world is deterministic one. How else can one go into the future if the future has not already happened. And how is it possible to travel to past if past was not "recorded" somewhere along the line of time... If there is past and future and it is accessible by someone at will, then it implies determinism. You cannot travel to somewhere nonexistent. If future is existent then it already happened. This needs to be properly rebutted by Con.This far He addressed it with this : "But must such knowledge be dependent on determinism ? for example a common conception of God is one that stands outside of time so too speak. Thus from Gods point of view what we would consider as our past, present, and unknown (to us) future is an observed event from Gods point of view."Ironically, this is argument for deterministic universe. How can God observe future if it has not already happened/been determined ? Think about it. Lets assume for the sake of argument that God being outside of time is true hypothesis. Lets also assume that future is an observed event from Gods point of view. How does this counter the deterministic world model ? Observed events need to happen/be determined before they are possible to be observed. Lets see what else Con offered us:"But even if this isn't true, why must Gods knowledge of choice A be dependent on determinism ? because that is the only way that humans could know and thus that must mean the only way that God or anything else could know too ? well that's an unjustified leap there."Well if you are going to play that card then this debate is pretty much pointless. You can as well say that God can make it so that His omniscience and Free Will are compatible, He can do anything right ? Here we are trying to use rational arguments to see if Gods omniscience is compatible with free will under laws of nature/our physical laws. If you are gonna appeal to special pleading with God being able to do even the logically impossible then anything is possible, even the absurd. To claim exemption from the laws of nature is to refute the validity of every canon of rational argument. So we are left with rebuttal of Cons closing remarksCon wrote: "As I said in the previous round Pro argument rests upon the premise 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. (Pro admits as such)."It is not exactly and only thing upon which my argument rests upon. There are many unaddressed arguments of mine in round 3. Also I didn't admit as such. I used "" marks on "free will choice" since this is the problem. First of all I argue that there is no free will to be had to make free will choice in the first place. Second there is no choice to be made as also argued at the start of round 3. No choice = no free will. Hence I also wrote that free will choice is tautology. Con wrote: "Pro can't get past that the impossibility of God being wrong about Pro making choice A (before Pro makes it from Pros temporal point of view) does not logically entail therefore Pro will have no choice when it comes to Pro choosing A (again from Pros temporal point of view)."This is hard to follow because its messed up. I cant get past the possibility of God being omniscient and being wrong, yes. How can I have a choice If there is no possibility of me picking anything except A because God foreknows that I will pick A. Con keeps referring to choosers point of view. Choosers point of view does not matter since He is determined to pick A as long as God knows that He will pick A. There is no freedom in Omniscience. Omniscience means that everything is known to God. This is only rationally explainable in deterministic universe as I argued many times. Lets post this argument as the extension of my previous ones:1. Something that is undetermined cannot be known. 2. Future is known by omniscient God3. Future is determined.4. Every future choice is determined.5. Free will-The ability to choose between different possible courses of action. 6. If choice is determined there is no different possible course of action to choose but the one known to be chosen.Conclusion: If 2 is true then by 6 we cannot have 5. FINAL CONCLUSION:I will end with 3 possible outcomes : 1. God knows future because it is knowable - DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE- We don't have free will( Con needs to explain how does God know future if it is not determined already ) 2. 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 willThis is the only way to know something that has not happened yet if it wasn't determined already. I would love to hear other possibility. 3. God is not omniscient or that his omniscience does not involve knowing the future. Lets say that future is unknowable and that God cannot know everything but only everything that is possible to be known. For the end I would like to make a little analogy to the probability examples. We only calculate probabilities of unknown events since events that have already happened and are known, have probability factor of 1. For example if I already rolled 10 heads in a row (of a coin toss) then this probability is 1 (100%) since it already happened. Untill I have done it, this probability was 0.0009765625. Why is this so? Because our probability in this example is based upon our empirical knowledge about coin that has nearly equal chance to land on both sides. However If there is definite and infallible knowledge that 10 heads are gonna roll then the probability of that event is 100%. The coin is not random but determined to be 10 heads. Why ? Because it cannot roll tails. This 10 rolls it must roll only heads. If you are unaware of this you may think that the probability is still gonna be 0.0009765625 but it is gonna be 1.Same with the chooser. From his point of view He may think that he has choice to make but the probability to choose A is 1. and to choose B is 0. Big thanks to Con for participation and his effort. Good luck to him and thanks to all the voters in advance.