You need to define free will for us to decide if you're talking about what others are talking about. I'm pretty well convinced that free will as I define it is an illusion.<quoted text>
Actually, free will and omniscience present no logical contradiction.
The free will choice causes the foreknowledge, not vice versa.
The opposite choice would cause the opposite foreknowledge, as the apparent paradox is due to the limited concept of forward time, as the omniscient entity is atemporal.
Worse, even if will is not determined by the brain or anything else, it would be pretty near impossible to demonstrate that will is free or uncaused.
And worse yet, free will means indeterminate will, and thus will that nobody can know in advance - nobody, not a god, and not even the self that apparently generated it.
Have you ever provided a definition of free will that would clearly distinguish it from other things that are NOT free will. or that would allow us to decide wither something in question qualified as free will?
Look at how I give lip service to the idea that you might do that, knowing full well that I will be the one to have to provide a definition of free will, including an operational definition.
My actual purpose here will be to show how you evade, in part with the deliberate choice to blur language and keep it indistinct. As chief obfuscator, your job will be to prevent a clear definition of free will - including a test - from emerging, so that you can continue to refer to free will as if it has definite properties, without having to say what those are.
Now, what is free will as you mean it?