As worded, I'm not sure if this is a great question, but there's a good deal of very recent literature on the precise question you seem to be raising.
Worded at it's simplest, the question is
1. Assume there's a God
2. Assume this God is "omniscient"
3. Assume "free will" means that individuals can make choices that are not wholly determined by prior ...
In philosophical lingo, the idea that everything we do/the future is already decided/determined is called fatalism. There's a nice SEP entry about the particular.
Determinism, the idea that the future is determined by its causal relations to past events, is a form of fatalism; but there are other kinds, like logical fatalism (the SEP entry focuses on this ...
The colloquial meaning of "destiny", "an attitude of resignation in the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable" as SEP's Fatalism puts it, is in fact compatible with "free will". The prototypical example is the myth of Oedipus, who was destined to kill his father and marry his mother, warned of it long in advance, and free to ...
Conifold and Hubery have it exactly right.
Libertarianism is very roughly the view that necessarily an agent acts freely only if determinism is false, and that some agents act freely.
This has nothing directly to do with morality at all. Someone who rejected the very idea of morality could still support libertarianism.
Moral realism is a view about the ...
The OP considers three scenarios that I will make more specific by relating them to characters in a movie and asking whether these characters have free will.
First, consider the scenario of a movie that has no conditional rules, that is, there is no button the characters can click to get an alternate ending. This is associated with "hard determinism" ...
Libertarianism is a position that there are agents who can exercise free will because reality is not deterministic and agents conscious enough to exercise free will exist.
Moral realism provides a justification for praising or blaming a free agent for making a choice. As the quote from Nietzsche mentioned one needs an agent to be free in order to blame or ...
God is not Omniscient!
He cant know the answer to question (1):
(1) What is god's answer to my next question (2)?
(Let x be god's answer...)
And then let the next question (2) be:
(2) What was not god's answer to my first question.
And THAT is a question that CANT have x as the answer!
So ANY answer given to my first question will be ...
Omniscience does not negate free will.
The reason for this conclusion is that having a given "power" is not the same as no choice in using it!
God also has free will, he can chose how much or how little he wants to use any of His powers.
I agree that if God chose to know everything about everybody, he would have to force everybody to do His will.
Omniscience doesn't negate free will. Best representation about omniscience and free will relation can be found in Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius, book 13.
As a short long answer: Omniscience gives to the deity the power to know everything, but not to influence anything. It's like a chess game, where the players know every possible move from point A ...
Assuming you mean "Libertarianism"
Yes, It is possible, for multiple reasons: (Depending on how "physical" or "philosophical" you intend the question to be interpreted)
Both Libertarianism as well as Determinism are quite believe based and are defined in different ways or at least different "levels of strictness" by multiple people including well regarded ...
It depends upon what you mean by 'evidence'.
If two particles are entangled at some point, the future behavior of one of them is tied directly to the future effects upon the other. If you don't question the idea that a particle has its own properties, or that information can travel instantaneously across arbitrary distances, then both events, the cause and ...