Free will

[Ignorant]

But in even proposing that there are two senses, such that a claim can be simultaneously true and false...we have flatly -demonstrated- the incompatibility of the claims made. 

Hardly. There are two senses because there are at least two senses in which the "terms" can be understood (i.e. equivocation is easy in this area). In both cases it is BOTH true that god infallibly foreknows AND true that contingent events happen contingently.

In proposing conditional, temporal, and causally deterministic knowledge as a defense of their compatibility we are sacrificing -both- foreknowledge and free will at the altar of their defense.  In proposing causally deterministic outcomes for a foundation or mechanism, we are sacrificing free will at the altar of foreknowledge.  In proposing the possibility of some other outcome we are sacrificing foreknowledge at the altar of free will.

Hardly. I don't know how many times I can say this, but free-will is not the same as contingency/conditional events. You can't talk about freedom if you don't even accept contingency as compatible with foreknowledge.

If you can't distinguish between a determination and necessity, then you will have a difficult time discussing this intelligently. If you conflate necessity with determinism, then it is as you say, and conditions are irrelevant (in fact, conditions wouldn't even exist) and "illusory".

There is -no way- this works together unless we change the "sense" of what were talking about between subjects - which is a massive logical chasm that no amount of scrambling will ever get us out of.  Something is wrong with our concept of god's knowledge, our concept of our own free will, -or both-.

Ya, it is definitely both, but I would also add to the list of inadequate understanding of concepts determination, necessity and contingency, all of which are logically more fundamental than god's knowledge and freedom.