I am going to quote what you said, that caused this to change into a study of determinsim:

Those are your words.  You said you have made it so both there isn't a God and free will doesn't exist.  In this thread here, you combined both, through an argument on foreknowledge.  HOWEVER, if I read your original post, what I see is you acting as if you were Calvinistic in nature, and what I read harkened to Calvinistic theology.  Maybe you were not being honest with you wrote this (your oriiginal post):

And that was your original post.  The subject is that Abrahamic religions (among others) make no sense.  Well, if you don't want to go into determinism, which appeared to be your angle on this (based on what you said later in the thread), then you are somehow going into foreknowledge + infinite power means no free will.  And you disagreed strongly with the concept that both can exist and free will can exist when I said that it is possible to have local free will and global determinsm, or that God can always get what God wants, irregardless of what people do.  Things work out in the end, and it is possible for all things working togeher for good.  If there is a game, it is entirely possible that someone play someone else, exercise their decision making, make moves and always lose to someone else.

In reality the arguments on determinism, particularly the one I posted, are more challenging, and borderline more interesting, than the one you wrote about.  Bluntly, if you think you are going to persuade the world via a slow crockpot which has stuff like this thread in it, I believe you are going to end up disappointed.  I actually personally find the Farnsworth Paradox more interest.  In that one, logic and free will cannot coexist in the same universe.  You can scroll back several pages to find the link to the video on it.

I think you need to understand that you are making this way more complex than it really is. If God created time (and is not affected by it), then he must be able to predict the future. Do you really think that God has no idea of what you will be doing tomorrow, or what will be your next meal?

For the millionth time: God cannot be omniscient while still not be able to see the future. Here is the definition of omniscient:

"Having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight" also: "Possessed of universal or complete knowledge"

The knowledge is not complete, in God's case.

I haven't confused anything at all.  What is your standard for the law?  Where is it derived from?  If there is no "good', or no "evil", then why is killing someone else wrong?  Why is same-sex marriage right?  Why is any sort of sex before marriage right or wrong?  All there is in these cases is another person's opinion.  There is no absolute standard, only relative ones based on whatever an individual, and in the collective sense society, deems to be "right" and "wrong".  There must be a standard, one that does not rely on relativity, on which society judges its actions.  It stands to reason that, if most human beings are in agreement that certain things, regardless of race, creed, or culture, are wrong, the probability of that being derived from a source outside ourselves is rather high.  Without that, the creed of "do what you want unless it hurts someone" is meaningless, an attempt to create a morality where one does not exist.

As for "splitting a lake using a stick", you should really read the Bible a little more closely.  The stick didn't split the waters.  Moses didn't split the waters.  God split the waters, and we're already within the realm of talking about an all-powerful God that created the Earth, along with the entire universe.  Do you think a mere trifle such as parting a body of water would pose some sort of challenge for him?  It's internally and absolutely consistent with the Abrahamic representation of God.  It makes perfect sense if one believes that such a being exists.

Can I prove that He does?  No.  But neither can the atheist prove the means by which the universe came into being, either, so both sides have to make certain suppositions based on unknown data.  Based on those suppositions, what has been said to explain (to the best of our ability) the Abrahamic God makes absolute and perfectly logical sense.  Rejection of the initial hypothesis is another matter altogether, and completely separate from the issue at hand.

Nature is God is the only thing I believe. Humans think they are above nature and other life.  A human life isn't any more important than any other life.  We just think we are special.  We should value all life rather than just humans who are more of a virus on this planet than any other creature.  I value all life except mosquitoes, ticks, leaches, and anything that is a mooch off of me.  Sorry, I have to hate some life just like the rest of you.

Just as an aside, I think it's not so much that we are making it more complex than it really is, it's that either:  1) You're making things more reductive than they actually are, or 2) There is a point at which human knowledge fails to completely grasp all of the particulars at hand.

You're still hung up on the time thing.  I can understand that, given our nature as strictly temporal beings (for now).  But knowing something is going to happen (or, once again, in this case is happening in the present, from the perspective of God) does not necessarily imply lack of free will.  The two concepts, no matter how many times you state it, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Again, all we can do is see things from our perspective.  And we're doing the best we can to explain things outside of our ken.  Within the framework presented in the Bible, God can both allow free will and be omniscient, and the concept can be internally logically consistent.  If you wish to reject the framework involved (which is belief that there is no such God), then there's nothing we can do to convince you of the logic otherwise.

Same-sex marriage does not hurt anyone. It does bring unmeasurable joy, however. Now, why is that wrong again?

I obviously knew that he didn't actually use the stick to split the lake, I was just ridiculing the whole situation where you implied that scientifically illogical stories made "absolute sense".

Bolded: When was God's actions divided into difficulties? As an omniscient being, one should be able to do anything with complete ease. That includes predicting what will be your next letter tapped on your keyboard.

Considering you completely deleted my post, I would have to then treat your post as its own entity, without context.

As for predicting anything, the word predicting seems off when everything is known.  it is just knowing.  Beyond this, whatever else you are talking about isn't really anything.   You have missed a few points here, how knowing everything connects to anything at all, points which usuall get brought up when discussing things in this area.  I believe you also have seemed to confuse having concern for with knowing.  One can know every detail, but not find aspects of those details important.  Also, one find things of far greater importance in the big picture.

If you want to discuss, then be open to details.  If you just want to yammer on and on, and supposedly justify your own points in your own mind, that is must simplier.  Just say you believe what you believe and be done with it, and don't feel the compulsion to change the mind of others you know nothing about.  The short is, have more security in what you feel, without needing to validate it by getting confirmation on what others think.

Bolded: I don't know why you put so much weight into making that point. We both know what I meant, and by flawlessly being able to predict the future you obviously also know what will happen and when.

I mean, as humans we can predict lots of things that will happen in the future extremely accurately, but sometime we forget certain details which renders our calculation inaccurate. God, on the other hand, would not make those errors. Present is entirely shaped by the past (which cannot change), thus the future is shaped by present (which then cannot change). 

Underlined: That's what I have been doing the entire time, which is supposed to make others question their faith. It is up to others to convince me that I'm wrong if they wish to do so, or they could just ignore posting in this thread.

Italics: I have full security in what I feel. Jesus wanted to spread his view of how He think that others should live (so do God...), so why shouldn't I be allowed to do so?

Why doesn't it make sense?

Let's pretend God is truly almighty and knows who will end up in Hell and who will end up in Heaven (and who will be immediately destroyed after Judgement day) and thus ultimately it means no human has true free will. So humans have no free will but religion teaches us to act as we have free will. A dilemma, right?

But how is that different from a naturalist atheist point of view? There's not a single proof that humans have free will and yet we all act as like we have free will. Every person makes thousands of moral decisions in his life as if he has free will and there is always somebody (including yourself) who will hold you responsible for your actions if you made a bad choice in a given situation. Exactly the same dilemma. Don't pretend that atheists are any smarter regarding this dilemma.

The bottom line is that it's not religion that doesn't make sense, it's the fact that we don't have free will that doesn't make sense.

Interesting Read-

The Limits of Science by-

Richard Dawkins - Evolutionary Biologist

Carolyn Porco - Space Scientist

Martin Rees - Astronomer Royal

Denis Alexander - Director, Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St Edmund's College, Cambridge