Okay, again, and I’m genuinely not trying to be rude here, I’m trying to be as diplomatic as possible, but I really don’t think you understand what free will actually means. What you wrote reads exactly like someone who hasn’t fully thought through the implications of what they’re saying. And I’m not saying that as an insult, because I’ve literally had this exact conversation before.

Years ago, my friend Owen said almost the exact same thing to me on the bus. Same kind of “God sees all possible futures” argument. Same “you choose but He already knows” framing. At the time I basically just planted the seed and moved on. Years later, after he stopped really identifying with Christianity, he came back to me and was like “yeah, I kinda get what you meant now.”

That’s not me saying “I’m objectively right and you’re wrong.” I understand that you have your interpretation and I have mine, and maybe I’m misunderstanding part of what you mean. I’m self-aware enough to recognize that I’m projecting that old conversation onto you a bit because your comment reads almost identically to his. But I can also separate that memory and still engage with your actual argument as its own thing.

So let’s actually look at what you said.

You said:

“He knows every one of those options and how each of those actions spawn their own branches, but which one you pick is up to you.”

I love Men in Black! I love Griffin! But, this is where the premise starts falling apart.

That is not how free will works. At least not in the way Christianity traditionally talks about it.

Free will means you genuinely have the ability to choose otherwise. Not “it feels like you chose,” not “there are technically infinite branches somewhere,” but actual choice. The ability to go left OR right.

Now yes, obviously your environment, upbringing, biology, previous experiences, all influence your decisions. I’m not pretending humans exist in a vacuum. But the core concept of free will is still that you are not a puppet on strings following a locked script.

And this is where your argument contradicts itself.

Because later you say:

“waiting to see your chosen predetermined path.”

Which is it?

Did I choose it, or was it predetermined?

Because those are two completely different systems.

If it is predetermined, then there was never a real possibility of me choosing otherwise. Ever. If God already knows with absolute certainty that I will go left, then I was always going left. There was never an actual open possibility of right.

And even if you bring in the “infinite branches” thing, it still doesn’t solve the problem.

Let’s say there are infinite universes. In one I go left. In another I go right. Butterfly effect happens, timelines split, whatever.

Okay.

God would still know every single branch already.

Meaning every branch is still predetermined from His perspective.

So now instead of one predetermined universe, you just have infinite predetermined universes. That doesn’t suddenly create free will. It just scales determinism upward.

And again, even inside your own framework, you can’t actually “pick” the branch, because the branch you were always going to end up in was already known beforehand.

That’s why I keep repeating myself, because the contradiction keeps reappearing no matter how the framing changes.

You also say:

“the mind fuckery begins there too great for our stupid little reddit minds to comprehend.”

And look, I agree that the universe is incomprehensibly complex. Obviously. But saying “it’s too complicated for humans to understand” is not actually an argument.

Otherwise literally any contradiction could just be defended by saying “well humans are too dumb to understand it.”

Complex systems are still systems. They can be broken down and analyzed. Complexity is not magic. It’s layers of interacting rules and structures.

And even if we grant your premise entirely and say “okay humans can’t fully comprehend this,” that still doesn’t fix the contradiction because God supposedly CAN comprehend it perfectly.

Which means from God’s perspective there is still a single known outcome.

Which means the outcome is fixed.

And if the outcome is fixed, there is no libertarian free will. At best you have the feeling of choice while following a path that was always known.

That’s why your argument feels like a two-door hallway that converges back into one hallway anyway.

You present it like: “you can go left or right.”

But then you immediately say: “the destination was predetermined.”

So really what you’ve described is two entrances leading into the same locked system.

It’s just determinism with extra visual effects added on top.

And again, I’m not saying this to be condescending or dismissive. I genuinely think people mash these ideas together because they WANT both things to be true simultaneously: 1. God is perfectly omniscient. 2. Humans have genuine free will.

But the second you start defining the terms carefully, the logic falls apart and you end up in ad infinitum and chalk it up to humans being to dumb to understand.