OK now omniscience. I understand what that person said about God not having free will because i thought that myself at one point. for instance, God always knows exactly the right thing to do, so He would always do the right thing, so He could not choose otherwise, as He is all-loving and would not do anything that is not completely the right thing, as this would make him not God. The weavers analogy assumes that there is more than one option open to God as the 'right thing', but if this was true, then both options would have to produce exactly the same result in terms of lovingness, and there is a good analogy which shows that if this were the case, it would be impossible to do anything. This paradox is called Buridan's donkey or something, and looks like this:
"A paradox of medieval logic concerning the behaviour of a donkey who is placed equidistantly from two piles of food of equal size and quality. Assuming that the behaviour of the donkey is entirely rational, it has no reason to prefer one pile to the other and therefore cannot reach a decision over while pile to eat first, and so remains in its original position and starves."
So God, having the choice of two identical moral actions, would not be able to choose between either of them. I'm sure this is a flawed argument as God is omniscient and could do whichever one he chose, but if there was any reason to choose one over the other then that would again mean that God would always choose that one, and so would never have chosen the other one, and we are back to the beginning. I think...... This is clear in my mind but i dont think i have explained it properly. Sorry.
