The contradiction between free will and omniscience prove the Christian god a fiction.

1) Defense of God’s existence A) Argument from Biblical Prophecy. You completely dropped two of my evidences on prophecy. 1) The return of Israel, and 2) Scoffers that are uniformists. I’m assuming you agree with them? The word circle here in Isiah 40:22 comes from the Hebrew word Khug, which can mean sphere. (http://www.icr.org...) I don’t see how responding to the “water skis” anology is relevant to my argument because I was using that verse for reference of expansion of the universe. I think it’s logically fallacious to assert that “scientists” believed in an expanding universe in those days, most of the ancient cosmological models were static till Hubble. Aristotle was pretty stressful over the fact. I’m pretty certain the Quaran isn’t talking about scientists when it was talking about disbelievers. At least, none that were in mainstream science. There simply was no evidence since Hubble’s telescope. I do find it ironic that in the first paragraph of your rebuttle you talk about the vagueness of religious prophecy, and then use a Qur’anic verse that is clearly referencing the expansion of the universe in a not vague way … Did anyone else catch that? B) Argument from Testimony. Well, I do agree with you that not everyone’s testimony are perfect. But you seemed to agree that religion does change you. I’ll respond to the varies quotes here “ I knew woman who truly believed in her religious experiences ” I don’t know your woman, so I can’t give much response to the incident. I believe in God, and I know I don’t have schizophrenia. I can assure you not everyone that believes in God has it. “ My life has been greatly influenced by Lord of the Rings and the Silmarilion. ” You do know that Tolkien was a devout catholic right? He was the guy that pretty much converted C. S. Lewis. His lord of the rings trilogy had both catholic and Christian elements in it, and Tolkien said that himself. No one is testifying that Eru Ilúvatar exists (Being influenced by and testifying are two different things). And it would be doubted because the author was Christian, granted he was probably using it as a metaphor for the Christian God. “ And deny that Buddhism changes the lives of Buddhists for the better to? ” From whence are the testimonies of buddahists? I’ve never seen a Buddhist monk on my door, testifying how budda has changed him. I’ve seen Christians but not the monks. It’s like they don’t even care.I live in America, one of the most religiously free places on earth to be…. There’s just simply no excuse why they aren’t sharing their testimony. 2. Dissonance on Pro’s Position “Picture Analogy” This isn’t really a good analogy. Pictures don’t have the ability to have free will simply because it only copies over visual data… The thing is, free will is immaterial, so it doesn’t have any visual data. However, if we’re talking about copying over immaterials to say a robot or a computer, such is possible because numbers and language (code) are immaterial and can be used to translate ideas, concepts, and stuff like that over (or represent them). In theory, the soul can be represented mathematically, if so, God’s Spirit can be transmitted over. So the robot can be just as free as God, just so long as God doesn’t use his power to restrain it’s free will. “ Potentially something may be both unbiblical and true ” Uhm… Can you demonstrate that to be true? 3. Predetermination and Fate “ When a human is making a choice, is that choice made by a predictable, mechanical process? Or does the human have an immaterial soul with which to decide? ” Well yes it is predicable, your desires dictate what you’re going to pick. And no one can escape their own desires. To be clear here, free will doesn’t mean that you lack a will yourself, you are enslaved to your own will. The “free” part just means God isn’t controlling it. Let me give you an example. If a person walks up to you and offers you great riches for free with no strings attached (say a trillion dollars), anyone can foreknow what you are going to pick because they know you desire it, and they might even know that you’re in need of it (say for family and stuff like that) 3A) Knowledge of the future is not Incompatible with Free Will I’ll try and explain it in this paradigm, I know the future because I am the future. It’s true, I am the future of my past. Just cause it’s history, doesn’t mean my past self didn’t have free will. With omniscient, essentially everything is like history with you, because you can see the decisions of free will before it happens because you know history of the future. Rather or not an omniscient agent knows history before it happens, it’s irrelevant because I can’t escape my own history because I would cease to be me . If different decisions were made, it would be someone else's will. History is what defines you. 4. Equivocation Fallacy Yeah, but then the argument is still incoherent because it uses the word “they”… If there is no free will there is no personal pronouns like they, you, or I… It would be like calling your computer a person, when it’s a machine. But then you’ll simply just change step 6 from “god knows they will.” To “God knows it will.” Which more or less makes this argument meaningless. *Sigh* 5. Foreknowledge does not necessarily limit free will. The statement “Because necessarily that which you create, you create to fulfill your knowledge of it.” May or may not be true, but it isn’t relevant. The image of God is not created by God, for it is God. All things are created by God, except God himself, for He’s eternal, hence why the image is not created. There would be no need to declare it eternal because it’s already eternal. It’s basically a replica from something eternal. Does that make any sense? I guess “cause” in this sense just merely means to work in the framework of one’s own image.