If an omniscient god exists then free will is an illusion

Rebuttal: While I do see this to be a bit late to introduce a definition I believe it is helpful. There is two main definitions of Know being used in Cons Round 3 rebuttal. https://www.merriam-webster.com... Know 1) to perceive directly 2) to be aware of the truth or factuality of :be convinced or certain of My argument is that to know the future using definition (1) the future must exist and be a place in time. Otherwise the omniscient god does not know (1) the future though it could know (2) the future in the other context. There is a difference between the two uses of this word even though the English language uses the same word. This is called an equivocation fallacy when using the same word in two different meanings. I also stand by my statements that an omniscient being (using the definition in round 1) must know (1. Perceive directly) the future. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... Now the example given of the sun will rise at 6:00 AM is a good example of this you know(2) this will happen though you do not know(1) this will happen until after it happens. The only way to possibly know(1) is to have perceived it directly. The only logical way this could be true to know(1) that it happened is that the future already exists. I am not sure how my statement of omniscience is different than strongly predicting has anything to do with your statement. My point was an all Knowing God would know(1) the future and not predict it. Yes it does assume eternalism is true as it is used to help explain my logic statement. I also do not think your analogy is logically possible and is the reason that if omniscient is true then eternalism is true. The reason is the opposite of eternalism is presentism. With this ideology the future is not knowable(1) as it has yet to happen. You may predict the future though it is not known for sure. This ideology would go against the idea of omniscient and is contradictory to it thus making it illogical. Leaving only eternalism as an option. Unless you wish to state God defies logic? Doing this would be a special pleading argument. Thus I state your analogy is not possible as it is not logical. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... I do find the Luke statement interesting while I believe it is irrelevant to the debate. As who is responsible for a betrayal is irrelevant to the topic of free will being an illusion. I was only using the example as a timeframe to show how eternalism would affect the events. Closing statements: If omniscient is true, then eternalism is true Thus Free will is an illusion My logic is based on the idea that omniscient would know the future. Where the only logical option in knowing(1) the future would be that eternalism is true. This would thus force free will to be an illusion. Without eternalism being true then presentism would be true and nothing could know(1) the future. Because of this fact if there is something omniscient it must by definition know the future thus eternalism is true. This in part forces free will to be an illusion.I also believe my logic argument directly conflicts with Cons allowing my argument to disprove his that God could know the future that is not knowable. This is seen when I bring up the presentism being the direct opposite to eternalism where one of the two ideologies must be true. Eternalism is true where the future is knowable, or presentism is true where the future is not knowable. To clearify this is knowing as precieving it directly and not predicting it. As predicting it you could be wrong. I would like to thank JimShady for a well done debate and offer my hand in friendship on this. I look forward to his closing statements. Thank you.