God has free will.

+++++++++++++++++ Conclusion: +++++++++++++++++ 1. Obviously, in this debate, Pro did not refute whatever I say in the previous round. Pro is going with his own definition of God that is Omnipotence. He says that an Omnipotence being can do anything yes I must admit that. But not a being with Omnipotence, Omni benevolence and Omniscience. I will illustrate this example in order to clear the confusion of the readers. God =Omni benevolence =Omnipotence =Omniscience Evil =Omnipotence =Omniscience (Possibly) =Malevolence Being X or whatever you want to call that (Not God or Evil) = Omnipotence Pro is claiming that being X has free will because it can do anything. Yes. But do you think being X is really God? As I have stated in my earlier round that God cannot sin since he is Omnibenevolent. Yes, what I say is true and valid because my opponent also admits that. He has no objection. He is claiming that the being X has free will. He also drops that God does not have free will because he has only one choice. He says that Omnipotent being can drop his attributes to become being X and have free will. Let"s us look at this further. Carbon Dioxide- CO2. Oxygen-O2 Carbon-C He is trying to ask carbon dioxide to release its Oxygen then it will become free. So, only C is left. He is trying to say that C is carbon dioxide. No, that is carbon. He is trying to falsely equivocate whatever Omnipotent being is God. 2. I have explained that God cannot have free will because free will is described as the ability to act in one"s freedom because God is powerful. Unfortunately, my opponent has no refuted the possibility that God was prevented by evil to do something. Since he also admits the Holy Bible is true, which means evil also exists. We can see that in this debate, the only reference that we use is Holy Bible but not any other books. 3. I have, again, proven that the creator (God) of free will did not have free will. If HE has given any human free will which means the man can act bad or good. He has no control over. HE is also predestined by its own knowledge of its future actions. Which means God has no free will because of he knows what HE will do in the future. If he does not do it, then he will be wrong. 4. Pro says that I have dropped his case and remains un-rebutted. Is that true? No, because whatever Con is irrelevant to the debate. It is no value for me to attack that. A few mistakes that I make are that misplace the order of the position of Creation in the Genesis. In the beginning, I define God as Omnipotence, Omni benevolence and Omniscience. I did not define him as Omnipotence alone. 5. Free will: The ability to do something". If God has free will, then he can do it. If God has no free will then he cannot do it. In my parts, God has no power to act because of the cancellation of power. Just to remind the readers that Evils are Angels before. That said, they are also powerful and almost same as God. 6. Pro is also debating truism. This means he is having all the advantages and I was set in a bad position. Onto the voters now, we, on the whole, have seen that Pro is dropping whatever I say in my rounds. He is trying to change the properties of God in order to let the free will works. But, after all, the being is no longer God. He has not met with his burden of proof to show that God really has free will to do something which I specifically ask. I thank the readers and voters who really read this debate. Please vote as fairly as possible. Good Evening and have a nice year.