Idunno, you've just repeated the argument but haven't at all addressed the following two points:
1) There was no free-will in the example you showed (so it no way shows free-will is possible). Stating he accepts determinism and says it's compatible with free-will is just circular reasoning when you have not shown free-will occurred at all.
2) Given there is free-will, it would be due to the fact that the person CAN will two things, but on willing one, will be forced to will another thing....but there is still an initial choice between two things, only one choice will have their mind changed and forced to do another thing. The point is there is an initial freedom to chose between two things. In the case of God knowing the decision you are going to make, there is no two possible choices, there is only one.
So the analogy fails in these two aspects.
1) There was no free-will in the example you showed (so it no way shows free-will is possible). Stating he accepts determinism and says it's compatible with free-will is just circular reasoning when you have not shown free-will occurred at all.
2) Given there is free-will, it would be due to the fact that the person CAN will two things, but on willing one, will be forced to will another thing....but there is still an initial choice between two things, only one choice will have their mind changed and forced to do another thing. The point is there is an initial freedom to chose between two things. In the case of God knowing the decision you are going to make, there is no two possible choices, there is only one.
So the analogy fails in these two aspects.
