this is an empirical fact — SophistiCat

Is it a empirical fact or quite possibly an illusion? That’s my whole argument.

And yeah it’s proving no free will in a narrow sense but this argument can be repeated for every action

"if." — tim wood

The if in premise 1 is a set up for premise 3 which states God does have beliefs about your future

I think the fact that there exists religious pluralism kind of discredits every religion itself. Think about it, if you had been born and raised elsewhere, you would have had different religious beliefs. If our founding belief and faith seems so arbitrary it makes question if you can really know wether your religious beliefs are true.

Look at the following argument for instance:
1. Your religious beliefs were instilled in you from childhood.
2. Therefore, your religious beliefs were not formed sensitively, or safely, or are at best true by accident.
3. Therefore, you don’t really know that your religious beliefs are true.

A belief is formed insensitively when the belief is false but you still choose to believe it. It is unsafely when you could have just as easily believed a false fact with the same reasoning. And it is unjust when despite the evidence you prefer to live in the lie.

Peoples strong beliefs can be defined by cognitive biases likeConfirmation Bias; tendency to search for , interpret and confirm ones's preconception, Endowment Effect; tendency of people to hold onto their value than adopt new ones despite the evidence or Sunk Cost Fallacy; placin the disutility of giving up ones faith higher than the utility of acquiring a new one.

Aristotle gave an objection this argument by denying the principle of bivalence when it comes to propositions about the future. I.e. the statement that you will eat carbs tomorrow is neither true nor false. Now God's omniscience only entails him to know true statements, and since this statement isn't true he isn't obligated to know it.

However this objection doesn't stand. Suppose I say that there is an overhead wave coming and then my friend catches an overhead wave right after. He will say I was right , but how could my statement have been right if it was never true (denying the bivalence)? So this objection can be further refuted.

Also there are evidence for claims made in the Bible explicitly stating that God does in fact know the future.

how do we define the term miracle? — musicpianoaccordion

I would define a miracle as an event which is so highly improbable that they’re the least probable occurrence at any given instance.

To defend premise 6, I'll say there is no strong evidence for a miracle since there is no accounts of a Miracle attested by sufficient number of people who are sufficiently intelligent and unbiased for them to surpass any deception aimed at them.

here is skepical theist response — Rank Amateur

Here's a solid argument against skeptical theism:

1. If one accepts skeptical theism, then one asserts that humans (non-omniscient beings) cannot make a reasonable judgment about what God would do in any given situation.
2. If one cannot make reasonable judgments about what God would do in any
given situation, then one cannot make claims about any other tenets of religion (e.g. the idea of heaven and hell or if God is actually omnibenevolent in the first place).
3. Therefore, a skeptical theist must remain skeptical about all other religious beliefs.

I don’t think I agree with your first premise; I don’t see why a monotheistic God must be omnibenevolent. That’d be great, of course, but I don’t see why ‘the one true God’ has to be on our side. Maybe God is cruel and omniscient; maybe God is fickle and omnipotent. Examples for both of those behaviors can easily be found in the Christian faith. I’d like to hear why you think a monotheistic God must be both omnibenevolent and omniscient. — lupac

Let me show why all three characteristics (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent) are required of the Christian God:
1. If God is not omnibenevolent, we can argue he is not worthy of worship by all
2. If God is not omniscient, the Bible is incorrect (1 John 3:20, "God Knows Everything")
3. If God is not omnipotent, there is potential for a more powerful being, which in turn would be God

Due to conclusions from Quantum-Mechanics, many or most physicists don't believe in Materialism anymore. — Michael Ossipoff

By Quantum Mechanics I assume you mean Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle aka the observer effect.

I want to clarify how the observer affect or anything in Quantum Mechanics isn't in contradiction with materialism. For instance take any object you wish to observe from your eyes. For this to happen there needs to be some information that has to come from that object tow you i.e. you will need some light to reflect of the object and reach your eyes.
Now if say we reduce this object to the size of the atom and again you wish to observe this object. Given the size of the object, the photons will now come in, hit the atoms and pop it to another location. Therefore, the very act of trying to measure the position will prevent you from measuring it's position.

It is nothing to do with consciousness, mind or any of that. The fact is, the smaller the object is the more susceptible it will be to the energy of the light changing it's position in space

I guess I am a panpsychist property dualist monist. — bert1

Nice! I had to look this up.
1.Panpsychist claims there is mental element present in everything.
2.Property Dualism says while there is only one kind of substance (physical kind), it has two properties (physical properties and mental properties)
3. Monoism is the view that all is one and there are no fundamental divisions.

This is contradictory, 1 makes the claim that everything has mental element while 2 says everything is fundamentally physical.

Further I think property dualism and monoism cannot be congruent either; property dualism takes qualia to be a unique feature of reality.

Can you please elaborate on this belief? Also, am I right in assuming you are a theist given this belief?

I am glad you made this distinction since, for me, this is a far more reasonable belief than, God simply having the power to envision all future. However, this reasoning still doesn’t satisfy the problem of free will. Your prediction of a person choosing a meal over assassination is far different from God knowledge of the choice. The difference between even 99.999% and 100% is where the problem lies.

1. If God has 100% knowledge of our choice, he calculated it from the factors affecting it.
2. Our choice can be pre-calculated in every situation, by the set of factors.
3. You only have one “choice” in every situation (from 2).

This infers that our decisions are direct results of all the factors affecting them. Further, these factors are going to be consequences of other factors that affected them and so on. Resulting in Infinite regress.

Unless we take the Universe to be finite, in which case all actions are just a domino effect set off Big Bang or the day of creation. So accordingly, we would have to say all actions were predetermined and every being as just a cog in a machine.

I am fine with this belief of humans as just biochemical robots, but if you add theism to the picture it adds further contradictions. How would the concept of souls align with this? How do we think about Heaven and Hell congruent with this ideology?

The problem I am posing is for an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God. If you don't believe that he is all three concurrently this contradiction doesn't apply

Why wouldn't he just start humanity at that advanced time, skipping all the pain and stuff

Anything Walt Whitman could do, God can do. — tim wood

If Walt could become an atheist, can God become an atheist too?

Why would a person have free will just becuase someone else has foreknowledge of the choice they will make? — DingoJones

Free will is the power of acting without the constraints of necessity or fate.
If God has foreknowledge of a persons choice, then the person is constrained to that choice.
Hence rendering him without free will.

If you have already concluded that no being is omnipotent, what is the purpose of this whole exercise? — BrianW

The point is to show an omnipotent God cannot exist. Apparently, using Modus Tollens here.

Think of the argument: If there is smoke, there is fire. There is not fire, so there is no smoke.

This might help further http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/forms/modus-tollens.php

Furthermore if you cast your mind back over the last couple of centuries the most appalling instances of intentional evil have all been perpetrated by humans. — Wayfarer

Yes, exactly my point.
These are people created by God.
Being Omniscient he created them with the knowledge that they are going to have evil intentions.
So how can God be omnibenevolent?

Of course there are also catastrophes, diseases and epidemics, but how would it be possible to have a physical world in which there were no such things? — Wayfarer

Why do you think such a world is physically impossible? Smallpox was eradicated in 1980 and we're just fine.

I also think it’s based on a misunderstanding — Wayfarer

The Christian faith says a single God created the whole universe. If he created it and knew how it would unfold, isn't he responsible for everything that happens?

A being (same source) is:

1. existence.

2. the nature or essence of a person.

3. a real or imaginary living creature.

None of this will do for God, — tim wood

Umm so according to you God is not a real creature. Are you arguing for atheism?

Ok, my definition of God is a being who is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.
My definition of Omnipotence is being able to do anything

So I rewrite the argument with these definitions using Modus Tollens,

1. If God exists, then he is omnipotent
2. No being is omnipotent
3. Therefore God does not exist.

Now to defend premise 3,

a. Either some being can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, or he cannot
b. If he can create such a stone, he is not omnipotent
c. If he cannot create such a stone, he is not omnipotent.
d. No being is omnipotent

Is God omnipotent before or after the creation of that stone? — BrianW

I think most religions believe God is omnipotent throughout

Makes no sense to talk or think about something without first giving some specification of what that something is — tim wood

I am talking about the general definition of God (you can think in terms of whatever Religion you do or don't follow).

If it's still unclear, check this out https://www.google.com/search?q=god+meaning&oq=god+meaning&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4537j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

God cannot make vegetarian bacon, although he is omnipotent, because I have just defined it to be an impossible object. — unenlightened

Yes, however, creating a rock so heavy that one cannot lift is not an impossible task. I can easily create objects so heavy that I cannot lift.

God doesn't conform to the law of the excluded middle — Moliere

Is there a particular third option you have in mind?

We are talking about can and cannot.
So either God can or cannot make such a stone.
Let's say God chooses not to lift the rock but he possibly can, then he failed at making the described rock, hence he's not omnipotent.