I would tend to agree with your position on this. For argument's sake, I am assuming God as described in the Abrahamic texts exists.

God's knowledge being independent of the universe does not refute determinism. I'd argue it has no bearing. God could exist outside of the universe and "look in". Assuming God's omniscience applies to what happens within this universe he would know the outcome of every event.

I'd argue for determinism with or without God. The existence of an omniscient being (whether internal or external to our universe) does not factor into this.

It seems wise to keep in mind that human logic is a very very very very small thing in comparison to a god, which is typically proposed to be the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, which is quite a large area. :-)

You dog can sit in front of your computer and see and hear the Internet. But even the smartest dog in the world could sit there for 10,000 years and never grasp what the Internet really is, because dogs simply aren't capable of the required level of abstraction.

When it comes to any phenomena the scale of gods, that's probably pretty much the situation we are in.

We know the outcome of the past but we know the outcome was reached by people making decisions. I wonder if the future could be viewed this way?

Ignoratio elenchi, not really as relevant, since it doesnt point out either.

Tell your friend to think of a physics problem. We can calculate that if we release a mass of x, under gravity of y it will fall with a force on the ground of z. Are we to say that God cannot understand this? Of course God can. Therefore his knowledge includes determinism. Perhaps your friend may try to claim God has some knowledge outside of determinism too, but it doesn't preclude God's obvious knowledge of determinism as well.

And to answer your title, God's knowledge that of the equation above doesn't mean God affects that equation. If a person decides to test the equation themselves, God will know the answer to what will happen without God's involvement.

it basically causes a fatal flaw in his religious beliefs because god would be throwing people to hell without them actually having the free will to commit any sin

I don't think it exposes a fatal flaw in his beliefs, just a fatal flaw in his definitions. I think I responded similarly to a post you had on omnipotence. If you define a word as being impossible, then there really is no conversation. Such "victories" will change no hearts or minds.

As a philosopher, we should be fair to the people we discuss with in the pursuit of truth. See if your friend is able to accept the fact that "omniscience" cannot mean an impossible word, but something possible. For example, "As knowledgeable as a being can be." You can site the fact that God genuinely does not know what a person will do before they do it, as why would God bother telling people to act a certain way?

If he's insistent that God must be an impossible omniscience, then just understand that your friend is not interested in a logical conversation trying to get to the truth, but an insistence on defending their own biases and beliefs. Everyone generally argues from such a standpoint, but those who refuse to consider alternative viewpoints and branches of thought are not worth your time. You will not change them. If you are interested in exploring topics about God with people who are interested in such conversations, stick around here!

...is there a way for god to know the future without ultimately causing determinism? — Augustusea

Suppose that the future is determined, either by god or by physics.

Does that tell you what it is that you will do next? Does that help you decide wether to have an egg or cornflakes for breakfast?

Seems to me that determinism has no effect on the fact of choice, and hence on what we ought do.

Theological fatalism claims that god's Omniscience entails a necessity for the specific action that god knows will happen in the future, now a friend I was debating this with, claims that god's knowledge is independent of the universe, and therefore does not entail determinism, which I find illogical and faulty,
but I want to ask is there a way for god to know the future without ultimately causing determinism? — Augustusea

St Augustine has a lot of thought written on this subject. I don't think that it is fair to say that god's knowledge is independent of the universe, because God's will is responsible for the existence of the universe.

Suppose that the future is determined, either by god or by physics.

Does that tell you what it is that you will do next? Does that help you decide wether to have an egg or cornflakes for breakfast? — Banno

I think it tells you that you do not need to decide. Relax, don't waste your time trying to decide, you'll eat what you'll eat without even needing to decide, it's already fated. If you die of starvation don't blame me, that's already determined.

I think it tells you that you do not need to decide. — Metaphysician Undercover

...as if that were an option.

I don't think it exposes a fatal flaw in his beliefs, just a fatal flaw in his definitions. — Philosophim

it is quite fatal for Islamic beliefs, as they are very dependent on the Idea of judgment,
determinism quite kills that Idea, even under compatibilism, it would just mean his god is evil, which would defy god's omnibenevolence, thus making such god illogical, or contradictory to have the same traits at the same time.

"As knowledgeable as a being can be." You can site the fact that God genuinely does not know what a person will do before they do it, as why would God bother telling people to act a certain way? — Philosophim

as for here, God knows everything under islamic definitions, even texts point out how he knows how you will die before you are born, but he still claims this illogical contradictory position, of both free will and gods omniscience

but that's quite irrelevant,
point is under Classical Abrahamic religious standards, Omniscience causes a contradiction or a problem, but person seems to claim it doesn't without any logical backing, I deduced its dogmatism,
but I asked here trying to see if there is something I am ignorant of

This is an issue for any omniscient predictor of future events. And probably not even omniscient. If a machine could predict with 99.999999% accuracy what someone will do, you essentially have the same problem as theological fatalism.

Implications of G's foreknowledge of our world is one thing, G's own freedom another.
G does not have time to have freedom (or "free will", if there is such a thing).
Can G find the free will to change G's own mind, after already having been omniscient prior?
Supposedly, G always has perfect (fore)knowledge, so G can't ever change G's own mind.
Here omniscience means no freedom.
Furthermore, if G is "atemporal", then G cannot have freedom.
There is necessarily a disconnect between atemporality and temporality; anything strangely atemporal cannot be subject to causation, for example; there can be no atemporal listeners as it were.
Is there a possible world, for which G changes mind?
If yes, then G can change mind; if no, then it's impossible.
This stuff goes for any G by the way; Shiva and Yahweh are just among the casualties thereof, unintended manmade casualties.