The problem here is that you're using a kind of mathematical certainty and structure when the objects in question are nothing like numbers.
Now I'm not opposed to arguments such as, "Tom is a bachelor therefore Tom is unmarried."
We might think we're talking about a real flesh and blood person here, Tom, but we're really talking about a logical distillation of Tom (in this case merely a thing that can be or not be married).
We cannot plug God into logical arguments because we distill God into things like "An object that knows an agent's choice ahead of time."
God is not that anymore than Tom is a thing which is either married or not married.
God transcends human reasoning (We do not know, for example, how to make a world or how anything can possibly make a world), but can be accessed, gradually, through lived suffering, through decisions made in real life, through love, through analogy, through scripture, through metaphorical renderings in traditional frameworks (symbols, icons, architecture, stories etc.).
This is all we can do. God has bestowed upon us a reasoning capacity sufficient to do mathematics/logic, but insufficient to ever make perfectly true statements in language.
Our refusal to keep this in mind when considering God can easily lead us to twisting arguments in order to arrive at a perspective which serves our own interests: namely, God does not exist because x,y,z (even though we could just as easily construct paper arguments that God exists because of a,b,c) and therefore I am not accountable to anything but myself.