Re: “All knowing”
Foreknowledge implies determinism - that is a logical argument. What is being said here is, if you apply plain logic to the belief in an ‘all knowing’ god, and the belief that we all have free will, and that we will be judged on the basis - it is incompatible and mutually exclusive. Why exactly are you expecting empirical evidence to disprove something that doesn’t have ANY empirical evidence for its existence in the first place?
You must have heard about the celestial teapot argument. Can you ever provide any empirical evidence to prove that there is no teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars? No you cannot. Burden of proof lies with the one making the scientifically unverifiable claim, rather than pushing it onto the person not willing to accept it. Likewise, you cannot provide any empirical evidence to prove that the unicorns don’t exist, or that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist.
Again, the point being, the burden of proof lies with the one making the scientifically unverifiable claims, not the one questioning them on logical and/or scientific grounds. And this is where, in my humble opinion (well, and in the opinion of many scientists and intellectuals), religion does not have the legs to stand on.