Every argument against the existence of free will goes something like this:
1. If God foreknows that I will do X, then I will do X.
2. God foreknows that I will do X.
3. Therefore, it is necessarily the case that I will do X.
This commits a fallacy in modal logic. 3 doesn't follow from the premises, namely, the "necessarily" part, which seems to magically pop up out of nothing. All that follows is that you will do X; it doesn't however follow that you necessarily will do X, i.e. that you have to do X. For example, you could do differently and God's foreknowledge would simply be different.
>b-but this must be a straw man because it shows that i'm retarded
It may be hard to believe that the purveyors of what you've been told is a prevailing viewpoint could all be retarded, but they are, retarded, which is easy to accept if you understand they have ulterior, evil motives. But to accept that, you'd first have to accept the possibility that you've been duped and are thus yourself retarded.
Adding specifics of what God has foreknowledge, such as that you're going to hell when He created you, is simply irrelevant and at best an appeal to emotion, i.e. it doesn't magically make the "necessarily" follow from the premises. If you're so retarded that you can't even accept your rejection of God as your will, then it looks like the system works, because you'd not exactly be a great addition.
This obviously doesn't prove free will exists, just your stupid bullshit for why it doesn't is wrong.
Just because claims like "Free will is an illusion," may sound hokey and spooky to brainlets, doesn't mean it's a statement founded in intelligence. Neither are you of particular intellect if habitually confusing perceived spookiness with intelligence, or sacrifice of meaning altogether with mental fortitude and soundess of thought.