There is nice long thread about “free will”. There are (at least) two problems with it.
One is: it is not clear if you talk about “will” (wish, desire… etc) or about the ability to put that “will” into action. After all, your thought are free, and they do not matter if you are unable to act on them.
The other is: can (fore) knowledge interfere with with (or negate) our freedom to act?
In this thread I am interested in the “knowledge” part. What is knowledge? The answer is simple: knowledge is internal information about something. Or using a slightly different verbiage: knowledge is an internal model of the reality.
This is an abstract definition, independent from the “knower”. Of course “knowers” might use different methods to obtain information, but that does not affect the basic point: “knowledge is internalized information”.
From this it follows that knowledge is only possible for something that exists (or existed). There can be no information about something that does not exist. The adherents to “open theism” understand that.
There are numerous and incorrect arguments along these lines: “I am about to give a plate of food to my hungry dog, and I know that the dog will eat it.” And followed by: “my foreknowledge does not force the dog to eat”. In other words: “(fore)knowledge does not impinge on our freedom of action.”
Of course this is nonsense. We do not “KNOW” if the dog will eat that food, it is just a reasonable assumption. The dog might suffer a heart attack, or might be shot before it can reach the food. For something that does not exist, all one can do is use their imagination and concoct a highly probable outcome, which is NOT knowledge. Of course foreknowledge is possible, but only for deterministic processes.
The whole idea of knowing the future is nonsense. What does not exist cannot be known, it can only be imagined.
Also there is an inherent problem with God’s knowledge. God is supposed to be “simple” - no parts, and also sovereign. If God knows our actions because we do them, then God’s knowledge is contingent. If God’s knowledge is primary, then we are simply puppets acting out his knowledge.
This logical contradiction cannot be solved. God’s alleged omniscience renders him to the status of a “married bachelor” - to have mutually contradictory attributes. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.