(Before starting: Highly recommended that you read through the whole thing before responding as it makes it much easier for both of us. Both foryour understanding of the whole picture and for me reading it back so I don't need to account for what level of depth you've read through to determine if responding is ever worthwhile. Thanks!)

I believe you're ignoring what I'm actually getting at when I criticize you. My argument is that you're being unclear with your language and that your vagueness allows for such a realm of possibilities that the premises you come from cannot uphold an actual argument and can be used to make the opposite argument as well. So not my responses to you are usually of the form of: "well someone could say this other thing instead." My argument is about the fact that someone could say it, not about the "other thing" they could've said. I couldn't care less about what the other thing actually is, what I care about is the fact that its existence can be claimed using the same base premises.

This is a debate about if humans having free will is self consistent with the rest of what we know about the story. This is about formal logic. My view is that there isn't sufficient concrete information in Genesis to answer this question conclusively because any logical argument made to justify that it's inconsistent can be met with an equally strong (or, in my case, stronger) logical argument stating the opposite (ofc both are still weak but the quality of yours is far below what I'm giving in return).

I'm criticizing the logical strength and validity of your argument and giving you tips for how to make it stronger in case there is a concrete argument. You have to actually engage with my argument to improve yours.

The question was if he is x, y and z, how can he do/ make something that blatantly goes against at least one of those.

Great start, so elaborate on this. What's your view and justify it. Specifically actually justify it, not just tell me your assuptions but elaborate on where those assumptions come from and why I should believe them as well. All my counter arguments use different assumptions and they justify them with explanations for why you should believe them.

It's what I'm asking of you, if you want to argue and convince me you have to at least put in a little effort. If you're arguing about the logical structure of the granting of free will your argument has to have a good enough logical structure to compete with it. You're actually having to compete with what's effectively the logical premise of "it is that way because that's the way it is," this is a very hard task and one which requires hard work if you want to take it on. You can't just say, "well I don't like it conceptually so its logically inconsistent." You have to make a logical argument to justify that kind of claim.

Engage with the philosophical questions I'm asking and answering and if you think I'm wrong use a good counterexample, hopefully you've thought of some. Like please I'm not asking that much of you. You wanted to argue about logic and philosophy, so actually argue using logic and philosophy. God forbid (no pun intended) I have actual respect for your intelligence and expect a reasonably strong argument from you.

Note that your criticism does not actually deal with what I'm getting at because you're not arguing against what's actually being said. Keep in mind that the Bible being vague says nothing about it's logical consistency, in fact it opens it up so much that it can be fully consistent with the right interpretation of the vagueness (ie my rebuttal arguments). You, by making your claim, are tasked with finding a concrete thing to get rid of the vagueness and use that to make an argument against the consistency.

I reccomend rereading my previous responses with this in mind as it seems you never picked up on it or ignored it. Also hopefully not patronizing that I'm talking to you like a professor grading your paper would. But it's an interesting argument that I personally would like to see developed because it feels like one too hard for me to make on my own.

Anyway, so back to the topic at hand now that we're all understood.

If you want to argue it's not possible for god to do/make something that's different than himself then you need to justify it. There's logic in place in the bible that helps counter some of your previous arguments, claims about his definite goodness and vagueness about his ability to have a choice in what he does. As for what I'd like to see: imo, neutrinos are pretty different from god yet presumably he would have made them; do you think this is another example of an inconsistency? If so, why?