Ok, I got it.  The purpose of this thread is to set up an argument against religion, where you get to shell religion from a high distance with artillery barrages, because you want to deconvert people.  It is NOT about discussing any issues that connect with it that may validate or invalidate it, like whether determinism is valid or not, or whether or not ethics exists in regards to whether or not sin exists.  You just aren't comfortable with this at all.  You just want to monologue against religion, and everything associated with it, because you are on a crusade to deconvert people.  It is your agenda piece, with in the end, you have the desire to change minds on gay marriage, as your main goal.

In short, you really need to get a blog somewhere and don't allow people to post comments.  You show little interest or regard in discussing anything.  And reading your little post on foreknowledge = lack of free will, doesn't have anything to do with morals or ethics at all.  What I can conclude is you have an agenda to shell Abrahamic religions, using this forum.  You have made up your mind that it makes no sense, and nothing to you will change it.  Saying it makes no sense has nothing to do with whether or not it makes sense, but merely is a salvo shell being fired from a position you don't want to be challenged or attacked.

The thrust?  You have made up your mind, and are as narrow minded as religious folks.  Difference is that you really don't have anything to offer humanity in your narrowmindeness.  At least from religion I got a few bucks that helped me keep my car on the road.

Yes, it is very much interferring. However, did you ever take in to account that the people themselves, with their free willed descision chose to laugh, mock and shrug Noah's descision to listen to God? With all the warnings? Didnt they have a choice to follow Noah's warnings? 

You should also take into account that much of the earliest stories of the new testament were passed on for tens of thousands of years through the mouth. These stories could have been accurate ,however, did you really think a snake really talked? Or was it the use of symbolism? 

The snake, back then and I think still is now, is a symbol of evil. So you probably get the picture. 

____

"In fact, all Abrahamic religions fall prey to that lack of logic. Why create humans in the first place if you knew exactly which one would end up in heaven and which ones would end up in hell even before creating them? Why create life that is destined to live an ethernity in hell? God is responsible for their misery, He created them, and knew where they would end up. He also know where you and your daughter will end up once you die, and your free will cannot affect that knowlegde as it is determined by God."

Remmember the long argument we had earlier? Did you learn anything about that? How free will and the almighty God can co-exist? Because this whole section that you just wrote seemed like we never talked about anything at all. 

Dont tell me I just wasted my time. 

Even if there was evidence that a god existed that would not mean it was the Abrahamic god. As the free will against omniscience contradiction shows that the Abrahamic god as literally described makes no sense that would imply that any creator god was not the Abrahamic god.

As for your point "He would not be almighty if He couldn't make a being with free will would He." What you're describing is the god paradox - is it possible for a god to limit itself? If god can limit his ability to see the future then he loses his omnipotence when he does so, if god cannot limit his ability to see the future then he is in not omnipotent in the first place. As such omnipotence is not logically consistent.

I went over something like this further up the post, but omnipotence or omniscience does not mean a being has been granted the ability to see the future. The ability to see the future is incoherent with the rules of logic.

In order to see the future, it would one of two things.
1. A fourth dimension that can be traveled along.
2. The ability to predict with absolute certainty all events of the Universe.

Point 1 is incoherent with what we know scientifically. Time is not a fourth dimension; it cannot be travelled back and forth along like in science fiction films such as back to the Future.
Point 2 is not possible due to the existence of random and abstract factors. There would be absolutely no way to view the future with absolute certainty. The best one could do is calculate probability.

1. God is outside of our dimensions though. It is true that humans cannot possibly predict the future, but an omniscient being is outside of all dimensions.

2. If God has managed to create a randomness that he cannot predict, then He should also be able to create another God that is mightier than himself. We are back at the god paradox that Rath brought up.

Bolded: No, that would be me, since you obviously don't see the major logical flaw in the underlined where He created humans that are destined to go to hell.

Free will and an almighty God can only co-exist if God is able to create a rock that is so heavy that He cannot lift it. Can God do such a thing?

1. That does not imply that God has the ability to time travel.

2. Randomness is logical. Having something mighter than what is almighty is logically absurd. There is no connection between the two.

Something tells me that you haven read the convrsation between me and NintendoPie.

Here.

Lifting covers up the definition of translation, which means moving something from one point in space to another. With this in mind, the real question would be, "Can God move a rock from one location in space to another that is larger than possible?" In order for the rock to not be able to move from one space to another, it would have to be larger than space itself. However, it is impossible for a rock to be larger than space, as space will always adjust itself to cover the space of the rock. If the supposed rock was out of space-time dimension, then the question would not make sense, because it would be impossible to move an object from one location in space to another if there is no space to begin with, meaning the faulting is with the logic of the question and not God's capabilities.

If your talking about infinite weight force and irrelevant surface area. Then thats another matter. God can simply take away gravity in order to move this object in this three dimentional world. 

Underlined: That's exactly what I am doing. Weight has nothing to do with size, it's about a magnetic force (which in this case is unlimitedly strong). God is not lifting the rock if He removes this force.

Weight Force relies on Mass and Gravity. 

GRAVITY must be present in order for a mass to exert Weight force.

LIFTING means moving an object from ONE SPACE TO ANOTHER. In order to move a rock from one space to another you need suffecient space. Then the qustion should be. "Can God move a rock from one location in space to another that is larger than possible?" In order for the rock to not be able to move from one space to another, it would have to be larger than space itself. However, it is impossible for a rock to be larger than space, as space will always adjust itself to cover the space of the rock. If the supposed rock was out of space-time dimension, then the question would not make sense, because it would be impossible to move an object from one location in space to another if there is no space to begin with, meaning the faulting is with the logic of the question and not God's capabilities.

----

Limitless Mass results in limitless magnetic force (gravity. Which results, in our dimention, black holes. Black Holes which is proven to move through out space. How can it move? we dont know but ,as we know, a black hole is present in the centre of the milkyway galaxy. A galaxy which moves throughout space.