Atheist are arguing at this web site from a more correct perspective of what if God was omniscient and omnipotent which is why the saints who are learned become weary.
One of the primary reasons that I believe saints are saints is because they cannot see that God is in control and that ultimately God is responsible for; as Dave at this site says, God is a baby killer. What Dave cannot fathom is that the babies are Gods to do with as he saw fit to begin with. This is also Paul's perspective as well. Never the less Dave in his stubbornness in his belief is (and this is an ongoing process) literally stating the truth ie. If God is omniscient and omnipotent then God is a baby killer which Dave cannot stomach because Dave does not agree with the idea that he could not be in control of himself. In other words Dave wants to be ruler of his own life and does not want anything else or anybody else tell or make him do something he does not agree with or thinks is immoral. OK. Dave is probably not a killer, murderer, or some other evil thing such as that because God loves him and wants to grant him all that he will and it pleases God to grant Dave to not be any of these gross evil wicked things. Good. That he actually argues from the perspective (that he really does not believe in) God is omnipotent and why does he not change these things if there is an omnipotent God is to say that there is no God is rather inconsistent considering that Atheists refuse to look at the last 50 to a 100 years of Data in relating them as results of any social effect caused by one belief or another. In other words an athiest tries to disregaurd or mimimalize 100 million slaughtered by communists athiests. Which was really a grand war between athiesm and God in which God overcame athiesm and has been marching ever since inexorably taking hundreds of millions on previous non-believers for himself.
Athiests are really nothing more that people who dwell in earth. So a more correct statement is it was a battle between the world and God but Jesus has overcome the world and instead of athiesm becoming predominant it is actually less.
Paul's error is very plain and simple. He is not taking the word omnipotent all the way to is't truest context. That is that God is unrestricted. Paul still restricts God in his mind by saying that he Paul chose God which is not true. God chooses him, unknowingly Paul restricts in his mind what God can do when in fact God can do anything. Where God restricts himself is not where Paul thinks that God is restricted. Fact is God and only God can restrict himself and he has restricted himself according to his will and according to his plan as spelled out in the Bible.