No, it isn’t. Provide an example - you’ll have to do so without writing of course, since that’s a logic based method of communication.
Nonsense, there’s no reason to think that logic doesn’t apply to everything, in or out of the universe. It isn’t a physical law.
And you are again trying to use logic to argue about something you claim logic doesn’t apply to.
Exactly. 
When we use logic to say things about the universe, it is being used as a physical law. What is our basis for applying logic to the universe? It is the evidence that it works.
However, that means we cannot justify using logic where it is untestable.
No, a God who exists in all times at once has no “future” or past. Knowing our future or past is not forcing our hand any more than I am forcing Richard Nixon to run for president by knowing he already has.
No; our “justification” is that there is nothing else. We can’t say anything meaningful or useful without using logic, and we have no reason to think that saying that something is “beyond logic” is even a meaningful concept, much less possible, much less true. Which is why you haven’t responded to our requests for meaningful things to which logic doesn’t apply.
Logic doesn’t need to be applied to anything real, it is valid because of its own consistency. And there is no reason to think that there is anything to which logic doesn’t apply. Just the empty assertions of the believers, many of whom on some level know that their beliefs are so utterly wrong that not the slightest bit of rationality can be applied to them without destroying them. Which is why they want so much to declare reason off limits.
Except for your unknowledgeable characterizations of believers, I agree with everything you you say here.
I’ll note that being valid and self-consistent is not the same as being applicable to the universe. Euclidean geometry is valid and self-consistent, but it fails to accurately describe the universe. We have to use evidence to determine which geometry best describes our universe. Likewise, we have to use evidence to determine which logic system best describes our universe.
Not necessarily. It could mean that God knows that He will do certain things in the future but not know everything that happens at all points in the future.
God knows everything that is knowable. Whether or not that includes every detail of the future is something I am not clear on. As my main source on God is the Bible & that can be read to support either Absolute Foreknowledge or Open Theism, I’m very iffy.
I lean toward Absolute Foreknowledge but I agree with you; it’s certainly debatable.
Does the contradiction still exist if the omniscient being never acts? (Beyond, we may perhaps assume, setting up the whole shebang in the first place).
It would seem to lead into a different problem – that being that the deity would know absolutely that you were going (to quote Projammer) to “spend eternity… getting buggered by beelzebub and a horde of horny horned demons a thousand years before you were conceived”, and that the deity was OK with that outcome.
So I can see the contradiction, or problems with, combining omniscience and omni-benevolence, but omniscience taken alone doesn’t have to be an issue does it?
Nobody is forced to make any choices. They make choices of their own free will. An omniscient being just knows what those choices will be.
Look at if this way. Suppose you go to Burger King or Taco Bell every day for lunch. I know you chose to go to Taco Bell yesterday. Does that mean I made you go to Taco Bell by knowing your choice you made?
Now suppose, through omniscience, that I know you will choose to go to Burger King tomorrow. Does that mean I am making you choose Burger King? No, no more than I made you choose Taco Bell yesterday.
My awareness of your decisions didn’t restrict your choices in making those decisions.
You’re willing to sign on for a method of time travel that can take a man into the past, but not one that keeps a traveler from creating butterfly-effect changes? Fiction has plenty of those; I’m not sure whether I’m being whooshed, here.
Such a thing implies predestination, which is what was being argued against.
I believe **Czarcasm ** was arguing that if an omnipotent being knows the future, and thus knows which choices he (the omnipotent being) will make then the being is forced to then make those future choices. None of this forces the mortal’s choices.
You’re right. I missed that. I can see where it would be more difficult to see how a being could have free will and knowledge of his own future, although logically the same argument applies.
But the OP and most people are discussing the idea of the free will of one being vs the omniscience of a second being.
The past doesn’t exist either. It’s gone. The only thing we have of the past is our memory of things that happened then.
If a being can have knowledge of things that happened in the no-longer-existent past why is it logically impossible for a being to have knowledge of things that will happen in the not-yet-existent future? Both are knowledge of things that don’t exist now.
That is why I believe in predestination.
I can’t answer for other theists, but let me see if I can explain my position…
Sometimes I’m taking care of a child, and I know that if the kid does certain things he’s going to hurt himself. I don’t know whether he will or will not do those things, but I know what happens if he does them. I will warn him but, unless a danger is extreme, I will not take physical measures to prevent him doing whatever it is. For example, I will place my hand in front of a sharp corner because if he bumps into it he can hurt himself badly, but I will not place it in front of a big soft armchair pillow which can tumble onto him if he leans on it the wrong way and startle him: the pillow is not going to wound him, and having it topple on him (if he does, indeed, lean on it the way I’ve told him not to) will eventually get him to grasp the concept of “when Nava warns you it’s for a reason, she ain’t doing it for kicks”.
That’s the kind of position in which I see God. He knows what will happen if we go this way or that way, He’s given us ample warnings, but He has also (by His own choice) given us the freedom to choose. If you look at time as a linear progression, you could say that He does not know what will we choose, having chosen not to “look” - if you look at eternity as the sum of all time, He does know what did we chose, but because He’s looking at our choices from that sum of all time (in eternity there is neither past nor present nor future, it’s all now), not because He forces the choices. Predestination would be forcing the choices.
Again, I’m trying to break it down into two separate questions. Was predestination already implied the first time around, when you were making your assorted choices while nobody else was looking? If not, then why does predestination get implied the second time around, when a guy quietly pops in from the future and carefully screens himself off behind some kind of anti-butterfly-effect plot device?
Theologians have argued (for a surprisingly long time) that God is “outside time”, and doesn’t experience it the same way we do. Put into a mathematical or SF-type setting, God is a higher-dimensional being who views all of our time from above, the way an animator can view an entire storyboard for his cartoon at once. He doesn’t experience sequential time the same way the character in the cartoon does, but can selectively create and change things along the entire timeline, and see the results of those changes as a logical consequence of his actions “earlier” in the timeline (earlier for his creations, but effectively simultaneous for Him). If you view things that way, then the apparent limitation of God by time and fate vanishes, or is at least reduced to the level of being "bound’ by the rules of geometry.
Right, and this dovetails nicely with the assertion that God is eternal and unchanging, without beginning or end. Which a being outside time would be, almost by definition. If time doesn’t pass for a being, it can’t begin, change, or end.
This is what happens when religionists attempt to use scientific terminology without having a proper scientific background.
“Outside Time”-Time isn’t a location you can leave, and the notion of observing everything at every time all at the same time is sheer silliness if you spend more than two minutes thinking about it.