Hello soulcalm17

[Sheldon]

No they're not, and this is a bare claim, as I explained already. people make astronomically unlikely predictions that come true all the time, the lottery would be one good example. 

You compare it with lottery predictions. 

Yes since they disprove your claim that such predictions are impossible, and names exist in the same way numbers do.

The information contains about details future is impossible come from human.

You keep repeating this claim, but have failed to offered any objective evidence to support the claim? Whereas the fact that people accurately predict future events (the lottery for example) simply falsifies your claim this cannot happen. FYI names exist in the same way numbers exist, and lastly of course your criteria are simply a long list of unevidenced claims. You're violating Occam's razor, by adding a deity that you have failed to objectively demonstrate exists, or is possible, especially since you have offered no objective evidence humans can't make such predictions. and then have them come true. 

The information about details future is there and spoken/stated by human. Information can not exist itself without someone/entity made it. It’s illogical if we say information just made itself. So it must be entity which made those information.

1. The fact a claim is written in a book does not represent objective evidence for that claim.
2. The information in the claim comes from humans, we have overwhelming objective evidence humans create books.
3. The addition of a deity is not required or evidenced, and in your previous arguments used a known logical fallacy, and thus cannot be asserted as rational. 
3. No one has suggested the information created itself - this is a straw man.

The characteristic of the information containing the details future events that proved to be true. Meaning that the maker of this information know about details future. 

Two claims, but no objective evidence to support either claim?

Thus, this entity must be not bounded by the time. If entity is not bounded by the time, then it must be not in our 3rd dimensional universe. It must be in higher than 3 dimension. That is why this entity is unseen to us.

A string of unevidenced subjective assumptions about something you can demonstrate no objective evidence exists or is possible, nor do I accept any of it logically follows from your previous two unevidenced claims. 

The only entity I see evidenced are human writers, all the rest is either unevidenced assumptions, or irrational arguments. 

Lets say (purely for the sake of argument) that a very complicated prediction was made, and further that we could demonstrate objectively that it came true exactly as predicted, (you have not done this btw), and that we had no explanation of how this was happened. How does this objectively evidence anything? All we'd have is a mystery we couldn't explain.