1. Already did, time traveler and frozen river analogy say hi, as well as the ensuing points regarding perspective and fixed vs non fixed perspective of spacetime, and the argument that observation or knowledge by a 3rd party does not fundamentally change the decision making process. It's a theoretical discussion and you're not able to step outside the box, so nothing else really to say there. Also, note I clearly said that paragraph was rhetorical (meaning I wasn't asking for an answer, just making the point that you're claiming to have a concrete answer to an unanswerable question as the basis of your argument, I'm not claiming a concrete answer, just a theory).

1. Yep.

3. This is the problem, you are saying for certain that an omniscient being would view time in only the way we view it, but then you won't even consider theories or ideas (because you've got the answers to the unanswerable questions of humanity). If I accept your axiom, then you're correct, but if you accept mine, then I have a point as well. These arguments are all based on axioms (as any philosophical discussion would be), so you need to stop pretending you have some complete and perfect point with no alternative views. I'm not even saying that about my points! Your fixed perspective is absolute truth? Well, there goes every single theory about spacetime in the world of theoritcal physics, better tell those morons they're definitely wrong and they should stop discussing such folly! 

4. Already did, done with that, you simply refuse to even consider the axioms for the sake of discussion. Any philosophical discussion uses axioms, which are, by definition, 'expanding the argument'. You want to have a philosophical discussion without anything philosophical or 'outside the box' being allowed, again, pointless.

Can we just agree to disagree on this one?

I can't make this much simpler - your time traveler analogy doesn't apply. I've said this multiple times, yet you hang onto it as if it were your last hope. If you cannot accept that this is a fallacy, then you should take a logic course.

Frozen River - uh, I already said that's a valid perception/abstraction, but it isn't the only form of viewing the situation which nullifies it as some form of rebuttal. In other words, just because this is a valid view, there are an infinite number of other views that an omniscient being would possess and would not be confined to simply one.

Not once did I ever confine omniscience to one view, merely said that is one view he would perceive which validates the claim.

You still haven't address how a deterministic path can exist with free will. You are refusing to address it. I'm growing exceedingly tired of repeating myself. 

I can step back and simply ask if your path is deterministic from the perspective of an omniscient being. Do you acknowledge this?

I don't know the answer to this question, I have beliefs and theories, but I just don't know. What else do you want? Your goal is just to get me to acknowledge an absolute that I don't even claim to know or understand so you can prove to me I'm wrong for even believing in God. Why are you so obsessed with that?

You should know the answer and that is my point. If there exists an omniscient being, then by definition all outcomes are known - otherwise there are unknowns and that violates the notion of omniscience (ALL-knowing).

I'm not attempting to disprove God (That's absurd. And for the record, I take no issue in the belief of a God). I am attempting to show you that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive principles. 

I've also made the point of active (influencing a decision) vs. passive (knowing the decision), and how this does not negate free will. Along with the time and perspective examples, I've alse said that knowing is not the same as influencing, so your conclusion is overly simplistic in my opinion. I'll post an argument along those lines (I'm about to leave the office and don't have time to write an essay right now)...

Your argument is as follows...

Nope, I have not once said an omniscient being influences your decisions. 

From 1-4 we can logically deduce 5 from your example. You have proven it, then attempted to call the logic faulty. The only way for faulty logic to occur is with false premises. None of those premises are false (or at least you did not address them, even admitted 1,2, and 4.) So it 3 false? Because 1, 2, and 4 are not false.

Slight Modifications:

1. Let W represent a human with free will. 

2. Let G represent an omniscient being.

3. Let C represent a function of choice.

4. W implies C(A,B). 

5. G implies C(A,B) = B. 

6. W implies B by (5).

I have shown that given 1-5, 6 is true. 

You choice is not influenced by an omniscient being, but it is known by him - determinism. Can determinism and free will coexist? Absolutely not.

Simply: God sees a deterministic path which is unalterable. He sees outcome, direction, predetermination. 

               You see a choice.

Free Will from the perspective of Omniscience is violated. Free Will from the perspective of a human is not violated.

In your example of linear time, God does not have to know the future with certainty to be omniscient, since the future does not exist yet (and omniscience is complete knowledge of what IS).

Basically, with the axiom of a non-linear view of time, there are ways around this paradox. With the axiom of God haveing a linear view of time (as you propose), he does not have to know the future to be omniscient, since the future doesn't exist yet (omniscience is the complete knowledge of what is, so does not necessarily include the future if the view of time is linear).

EDIT: You're confusing Anterograde Omniscience (theoretical knowledge of the future) with the overall concept of Omniscience (the complete knowledge of what is). The concept of omniscience also includes discussions of Inherent Omniscience (the CAPACITY to know everything that can be known), or total omniscience (the actual knowledge of everything that can be known), but does not have to include Anterograde Omniscience by definition. Also, to define omniscience you would then have to specify what can be known. With a linear view of time, it could be argued the future cannot be known since it does not exist, which is why there is active debate as to whether the bible describes Anterograde omniscience or not. Many who believe in or argue for Anterograde Omniscience go into the discussion of the perspective of time and how that could result in God knowing the future, as well as whether or not that would negate choice (as you said above, it could appear to negate choice from one perspective, but not another).

Think you confused God with some kid you randomly beat up.

Might as well be.

You shouldnt beat up kids who are having wholesome fun, pretending they are God :)