Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Skepsis]

There is a third option: Suggest a different purpose God has in mind. You said:

No, you got it. Here's why I think that this would have to be the case in a world with a God whose attributes included omnipotence and the power to create:
If this creator has the power to make any world he wants, then it follows that he necessarily takes free will from the equation. Reason being, if it is the case that he can make any world, he chose a world where events played out a certain way. If he chose a world where events played out a certain way, then all the events of that world are subject to his will. If all events are subject to his will, then nothing that occurs in that world is against his will (unless he is too stupid to make a world where everything matched his will) and all choices you could possibly make are null. Choices are nullified because the your will is really the will of that God, having chose the universe where you would make the decisions you are making and not different decisions. To rephrase, you aren't the arbiter of your own choice, the omniscient God chose the world where you would choose as you do. True free will isn't subject to a God's choice of a world.

What if the world (or reality) God intended to make was one in which you and I have freedom of will? Would it then necessarily follow that God would have to create a reality with no freewill? I'm thinking the purpose of God the Bible describes is to create us to be free to love, or hate as we choose. For without choice, love is impossible. The Bible indicates the end game of God is to promote this love that requires freedom, I believe.

Most often God isn't given the properties of true omnipotence, because the concept in practice is impossible and logically contradictory. They simply give him the power to make a universe as he sees fit, with the boundaries set firmly in what is logically possible and non-contradictory. If the God you espouse is free from logical base laws, then cool, you have a God with the capacity to do anything and as such would be able to do things that contradict his nature. Chew on that and toss it around in your mind to find what is implied here.

I can cite several passages to this effect,

Goody. I don't really care. I would have taken you at your word.

To counter this premise, you would need to show either (a) God's ultimate goal is not that we love him and each other, or (b) love is possible with the complete absence of freewill.

I have to do no such thing. To ask me to do either means you simply misunderstood my argument in the first place. It was probably too hazy for you to understand the God I was talking about because I only implied he couldn't contradict logic, so that was my fault.
You seem to be saying that if he can create any world he wants, he can ignore his own attributes and create a world where he doesn't know everything while knowing everything. This would allow him to create a world with free will, I guess... I don't really see how he could be omniscient without being omniscient or the logical implications of contradictory logic in reality, but whatever floats your boat.

I would not ask you to accept this argument, but if I've inadvertently made some factual errors, or logical errors, please point them out.

If I screw up, call me out on it. If you screw up, I give you my word that you'll know.

Perhaps it would help to imagine a scenario where a being without freewill exists. Let's say you are a scientist exploring deep space hundreds of years from now. During the trek, you create a drug that gives you perpetual youth, so that you might live forever. Unfortunately, the members of the spaceship's crew all refused to take the drug. One by one they die of old age, eventually leaving you all alone.

You decide to make a companion for yourself--a robot. You create this robot to look like a beautiful woman and program her to say she loves you. She can never say otherwise, for this is how you programmed her--without the freedom to choose to not love you. When she says the words, "I love you," are they a genuine expression of love? If so, why?

Is the robot highly complex and capable of radical thought pattern changes? Is she technically "capable" of changing thought patterns like love, yet programming makes her believe that she loves him because of her own thoughts?
This is what defines a person who believes that he loves someone if he/she didn't really have free will. We all feel these emotions and feel we have control over our lives, but determinism says otherwise. A God-based determinism like the one God as defined by millions as defined by me necessarily must create, as I argued, holds water until such time that you accept God is capable of disregarding logic at any point in time. This puts you in another sinking boat, unless you go back to the beginning and choose one of my original options:
Either choose that
1. My definition of God is wrong, meaning he doesn't have omniscience or the ability to create any world he wishes to create (bar logical/trait-based contradictions).
2. Argue that I was flawed in my logic somewhere and show me where and how, or
3. Submit to the argument and accept that a deterministic God necessarily follows from his traits.

Did I mess up his traits?
Can he ignore logic?
Is my argument flawed?

It's up to you what you feel is correct, but you owe me an explanation if you are going to dismiss the argument for any other reason than these three. One reason might be that there were more choices that I didn't consider...