This isn't an opinion.

Free Will implies choice. If there is a deterministic path, there is no choice. They are contradictory concepts by definition. 

This isn't as complex as you seem to think it is.

Nor is it as simple a concept & discussion as you believe it to be. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

You bring up some commonly used, but still interesting paradoxes on the subject. For the sake of discussion, I hope you find some of my thoughts on these subjects interesting.

1. You're basically arguing that there is no possibility of anything being all powerful, all-knowing, or infinite. This argument is like asking 'can anything be larger than infinity', then using the answer to that question to disprove the concept of infinity. It's a self-defeating argument based solely on the inability for finite beings to fully comprehend the concept of 'infinity', or in this case 'all-powerful'.

2. This would go back to the very complex and deep debate on free will and love. If this creator chose to give humanity free will, and the pain and suffering of humanity is due to misuse of this free will, the creator would be contradicting the very law of the free will he gave us by eliminating that suffering (as he would have to force us to act in a certain way). Without free will, it is impossible for love to exist. A robot that is hard coded to act in exactly the way it is created cannot love somebody and could not inspire reciprocal love. Without the potential for darkness, there is no such thing as light. Without the potential for hate, what is love? Without the potential for cold, what is warmth?

3. Theoretically, is the creator actually everywhere, or is this simply how he is described based on a limited frame of reference (we are constrained to time/space, while the theoretical creator in this discussion is not)?

4. If (the sake of this discussion) you accept the axiom that humanity was created, then consider the idea that we are created 'in the image' of the creator, you would only need to then understand the love a father or mother has for their newly born child. In every aspect, the parent is technically far superior to the newly born child, but loves him/her immensely. No matter what that child does to 'mess up', a good parent will continue to love that child. Every parent would have specific plans or goals for that child, finish high school, go to college, maybe carry on the family business, but since the child has free will, there is no way to guarantee those plans will be met exactly without 'forcing', and thereby defeating free will and not acting in love. Free will and the concept of love are the two concepts that expain this apparent paradox.

1. The problem is not our inability to comprehend infinity. The problem arises when one tries to define "the largest infinity", so to say. I don't know how much mathematics you've studied, but there is no "unique" infinity. There is the countable infinity (aleph-zero); this is the cardinality of the integers. If one is to accept the axiom of choice (which most mathematicians do), this is the smallest possible infinity (not that this is really relevant to our discussion). Then there are other infinities. Infinite number of them, in fact. But back to the paradox. The paradox is with trying to define the largest infinity. This cannot be done. By Cantor's Theorem, the power set of any set has a strictly larger cardinality than the original set. Now I understand that this is all really abstract, but this is what it basically boils down to.

2. Here is your inability to comprehend things out of what you consider to be ordinary. In a sense, what you're saying is completely logical. However, you have no problem ditching logic and reality to fill in other holes of your theory. So you can't rely on logic and reality to block people from drilling more holes. You obviously can't comprehend a world with free will and no evil; neither can I. What is to say that an omnipotent creator couldn't create a world with free will and no evil? By saying he can't, you're admitting that he is not all-powerful.

3. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say with this one...

4. The analogy is very bad. First of all, you're applying human qualities to your creator. You can't do that, and decide an arbitrary, convenient point to stop at. The "in his image" argument won't save you here. A lot of people are stupid, evil, ugly, etc.; if they were all created in his image, then god must be in parts stupid, evil, ugly, etc. See how ridiculous it is to say things like this? Also, god is nothing like a loving parent. What loving parents give their mentally challenged child a gun, then cast him into a fire pit for pulling the trigger?

Secondly, again, god being all-powerful, he should have a way to guarantee that any plan he has will turn out exactly the way it's planned. Me not being able to do the same with my child is irrelevant, because I'm not all-powerful.

It absolutely is. Again - contradictory by definition. It's like you're saying Up is Down right now to me. Just because you're incapable of fathoming the topic doesn't mean it's difficult for me to.

1. I agree, if there is an all-powerful God, we would not be able to define or quantify him accurately based on our limits.

2. Since this is a discussion of the metaphysical, we of course cannot rely strictly on logic in such a discussion.

3. I'm suggesting that maybe humanity's descriptions of the creator's attributes could be more perspective-based than based on absolutes.

4. You would have to accept a few axioms for that argument to work (most metaphysical discussions are based on axioms). Those axioms are that Man was originally in God's image and perfect, but no longer is due to our choices as a species, and that God is defined as being wholly good. Mankind reflects many good traits (light), but also has developed evil traits of our own (darkness, absence of light apart from the creator). If you also accept the axiom that God made a personal sacrifice in order to remove the necessity for any of his creation be 'cast into a pit of fire', that would mean he is indeed completely good. From a perspective outside these axioms it clearly makes no sense, and I wouldn't expect it to.

There's a reason it's called faith, and based on my personal experience, I'm in no way ashamed of my faith.

Note that I'm not under any illusion that I could convince you of anything metaphysical or religious in nature in a video game forum, LOL. I really just enjoy stimulating discussion, especially with people who (respectfully) disagree with me.

1. The Creator is all-powerful - I sort of understand this. If something created everything, then it seems likely that it must have unlimited power. I think this is flawed thinking. If universe was created by a creator, that doesn't mean the Creator has the ability to create anything. Everything that exists could merely be the extent of the Creator's power. The Creator "only" created the universe. Maybe He lacks the ability to create anything else. We wouldn't be able to find out.

If the creator isn't all powerful it means someone else can be more powerful than the creator rendering the creator powerless and pointless.

2. The Creator is all-knowing - I don't understand this at all. Just because a being started something doesn't mean they would forever know everything about their creation. It's possible that the Creator let his creation flourish without constant, absolute surveillance.

We look at the creator from the point of view of the creature. What we don't understand we consider impossible. Again, if the creator doesn't know everything someone else might know making the creator inferior.

3. The Creator is all-loving - Again, I don't understand this belief at all. Why must a Creator love his Creation?

Perhaps you prefer the creator of the Old Testament. Believe in me or die.

4. The Creator is everywhere - Just because He created everything, does that mean he has to be everywhere?

Matter is everywhere. Even in space as dark metter. If we now know there are particules everywhere why not a conscious?

5. There's only one Creator - What's the logic behind believing in one Creator rather than multiple Creators?

Multiple creators would be completely equal (useless and illogical) or completely different (creation would have been chaotic).

6. The Creator has a plan for humanity -

If the creator knows everything of course it does.

1. I said 'at least' as powerful as the universe which He created. Our ability to describe Him can only go so far. My point is we use our limited intellect and frame of reference to describe something that is so outside the realm of our own understanding as to be indescribable and unknowable in scope and magnitude as related to our finite understanding. The term 'all powerful' is a term that is based upon a frame of reference. Any aspects of this beyond our own space/time limits is purely theoretical or religious. If you look at various religious texts, there are intra-dimensional beings described as having been created by the creator, so in a religious/faith discussion we can argue that the Creator can and has created things outside the constraints and laws of the universe. In a discussion outside of religion/faith, this is of course unprovable and unknowable.

2. Does 'all knowing' mean having all Wisdom, or knowing every single thing that is happening at any given moment? This is a very long and deep discussion with many theories and doctrines. If you were to design and create a computer system and know how every single circuit and line of code works, then give that computer system to a friend, you would have 'all knowledge' about that computer, but not necessarily know at every moment what your friend is doing on that computer. On the other hand, you could design the system to report back to you every single aspect of it's use, so could also theoretically make a way to know everything about both the computer's functions, and the way it is being used. There are multiple beliefs on this subject and I'm not really sure where I fall on this one to be honest.

3. This is largely based off faith, Some faiths see God as a tyrranical ruler that requires strict obedience or wants us killed, some faiths believe He is a loving creator that decided to give us a way to better ourselves and find forgiveness. (Taken from my post below): "If (the sake of this discussion) you accept the axiom that humanity was created, then consider the idea that we are created 'in the image' of the creator, you would only need to then understand the love a father or mother has for their newly born child." Christians also make the argument that He loved humanity so much that He actually came down as a man, but without accepting that...

4. If He is not only outside of space as we define it, but also outside of time, He could in theory interact with any person/situation at any time, therefore having the ability to be everywhere at once. Since our only frame of reference is from inside time, this theoretical concept is difficult to describe. We are obviously constrained to time, so how could we even imagine what it would mean to be outside time? We know there are wavelengths of light (and therefore theoretical colors) that we can't see, but try for a second to imagine a color you've never seen. Based on your frame of reference, those colors cannot be imagined.

5. I guess one non-religious argument that could be made for a single creator would be the in the harmony of physical laws and the similarities seen in  the building blocks of life (amino acids, DNA, RNA, etc.). The harmony of all aspects of creation would point to a single designer if we assume the universe was designed/created.

6. That's based on faith and would tie back to the end of what I said in point 3.

Is there an ignore button? Seriously, all you do is post nonsense in attempt to upset me so I'll call you a name and you can report me so I get banned. I'm sick of it.

1. @OP. A creator is worthy of praise. Assuming he is not himself created and the praise is not intended to go a level higher, to a higher creator, then I am thinking that the utmost creator is worthy of all praise and that he is almighty.

2. @OP. I'll concede that the most contestable one is all-mighty. However, think of it the case where the creature was able to learn and outgrow its creator. In such a case, there is something in the universe that allows the creature to outgrow its creator, and that process of learning is in itself part of the created order, leading one to believe that there was a greater creator than the original mini-creator in the first place. 

3.Ultimately, believing in God is a leap of faith that requires all these to be true all at once. It all makes sense, but you have to get to the question first.