>>1
Read the paper. "Free Will" here is not the "Free Will" you are thinking of. It was defined as "the opposite of Determinism", that is, that every event can be traced forwards and backwards in time. What the paper demonstrates is that particles cannot be predicted, but that that uncertainty is not mere randomness. Thus, neither the future nor the past can be predicted to absolute precision.
This concept has been popular in Quantum Mechanics for a century. It has nothing to do with Human Free Will, as explained in the paper, nor does it touch on Fate or anything like that.
>>2
>>3
Of course, the primary fallacy here is that you're assuming "God" exists in the first place. For any existence argument to be valid, you must first define your terms completely and then start the argument with an existential if statement, like so:
"God" is defined as a sapient, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being who created the Universe, etc, etc, in accordance with the King James Version of the Christian Bible. If such a thing as can be described as "God" exists, then...
Then you have to demonstrate that something can and does exist that matches all the criteria.
This of course would take a ridiculous amount of time and would be vulnerable to literal thousands of logical contradictions and impossibilities, and so the entire argument would crumble before it even began.