To Naranjot (this will be a bit lengthy, hopefully not as lengthy as the actual PDF 
)
Okay so I got around to reading the PDF. I can't say I agree with him... and here's why.
The Free Will argument is an "Empirical Argument." The author of the PDF begins by saying.
Now heres my problem with the above quote. It was "Empirical Logic" that first illuminated the problem and despite what the author says, Empirical logic has provided an answer for the problem that is consistent with Empirical Logic (but both situations are undesirable for the Theist). The implications of the FreeWill/Destiny argument is as follows:
1) God has given man no free will (In which case there can be no judgments passed from God)
or
2) God cannot be truly omnicient (In which case the definition of "God" must be redefined)
So when the author says, "Empircal logic has failed to resolve this problem" that's a lie. Empircal logic has provided two answers, both of which are unappreciated by the religious (and rightfully so, they undermine God's ability or denounce the possibility of heaven/hell/judgments but atleast they are empircally consistant).
He then goes on to answer the problem in a very Non-Empircal way. You cannot answer an Empirical Argument/Problem with a Non-Empirical Answer. His answer also has some problems (buts thats cause hes not using logic, he using nice-sounding-language to promote his ideas that seem to make sense but upon "Logical Scrutiny" his assertions have flaws).
For example:
The above assertion is integral to his argument. And I've heard many people try to use similar arguments. Essentially what he is saying is "God is above logic"
But when you think about it
What he is admitting is that: "God is illogical" (and i completely agree that an illogical being can do w/e he wants . But I'm not sure if one would want to believe their god is illogical)
For example, if I was to say: "Bush is above the law" thats akin to saying "Bush is unlawful"
So when someone says "God is above logic" thats akin to saying "God is illogical."
Judging by the above quote, and some assertions in his PDF. He believe in a God that can make 2+2=5. Thats a problem in and of itself. So a consequence of his argument is that the God that he believes in, must be illogical... and if that god is illogical, then no logical argument can be made in favor of his existance. So his entire argument rubs me the wrong way, in his defence, he kind of admitted it was a non-empirical argument from the fore front. But empirical problems demand empirical answers.
I elaborate on this argument in the below reply.
