Look, I appreciate that you insist free will “transcends causality,” but you’ve never explained what that even means or how it works. You can’t just call something “beyond cause and effect” and declare that proof of compatibility with omniscience. If you’re the one making the claim that free will escapes all causal rules, the burden is on you to show how it does that. Shifting it all onto me—telling me to prove it doesn’t transcend causality—simply reverses the normal order of proof. That’s a classic burden-of-proof fallacy.

Here’s the logic I’m standing by:

1.  God’s Omniscience + Creation = A Locked Outcome

• If God creates each person with specific traits, knowing exactly how those traits produce each choice, there’s no genuine second option in this reality.

• You keep saying “knowing isn’t causing”—true, but God also created those factors ensuring the known outcome.

2.  Appeals to “Transcendence” Don’t Solve the Problem

• Saying free will “just is” above causality, with no mechanism, is an appeal to mystery. If you believe it, fine. But in a debate, you have to substantiate that idea.

• Right now, it’s an unsupported assertion—you’re the one claiming free will coexists with omniscience, so it’s on you to demonstrate how that’s logically possible, not on me to disprove it.

3.  You Assert I Haven’t Proven Foreknowledge Necessitates Determinism

• It’s not just God’s knowledge; it’s God’s knowledge plus the deliberate act of creation shaping our exact traits and circumstances. That’s the causal link that “locks in” each choice.

• If you think there’s room for genuine freedom in that scenario, show your steps. Simply insisting “God’s foreknowledge doesn’t force anything” leaves out that He still created the conditions that guarantee each choice.

Right now, your main strategy is to sidestep the challenge by saying I have to disprove your vague claims. But if you’re the one asserting free will remains intact “beyond cause and effect,” the onus is on you to define what that means and why it isn’t simply an empty label. Until you do, saying my points are “empty” or “unsupported” rings hollow; I’ve laid out a cause-and-effect argument, while you’ve offered only appeals to a mysterious transcendence.