The Problem of Evil (XXVII)

[Angrboda]

I don't think a tri-Omni being can itself have free will. If it is omniscient, it can foresee everything it will ever do. If it is omnipotent, it can do otherwise. But if it does otherwise, it was not actually omniscient to begin with. So an omniscient being can only do what it foresees it will do and does not possess free will in any meaningful sense, it can't choose to do other than what it already knows it will do. In effect, all its choices were made instantaneously as soon as it came into existence and can never be changed.

There are a couple of views on what free will is.  My particular view leans more towards conscience responsibility in our choices (compatibilist) , and away from libertarian free will.  I don't think that knowledge of a choice violates free will.   For instance in such discussions; I am 99% sure, that someone is going to argue, that knowing the choice one is going to make, violates free will.  Does this mean, that they only had 1% free will to do so?  If because I am familiar with someone, and am fairly certain which choice they will make, does it mean that they are no longer making a conscience choice?

I presume you mean 'conscious' choice. You are conflating it being probable that someone will do something with it being necessary that they will do something, for one. For two, you are confusing making a conscious choice with freely making a conscious choice. A computer could be programmed to choose based on a weighing of various criteria. Given a specific set of values for those criteria, its choice will always be the same. Its choice is determined by the algorithms used to weigh the different criteria. That an entity makes a choice among alternatives says nothing about whether that choice was free or whether it was determined.

I also had a similar discussion a few years ago; on a Christian forum I propose the following scenario.   Let say that Jill is able to go into the future, and know what choice Jack will make in a given circumstance.  Now she knows what choice Jack will make, but does not tell him, or even come in contact with him, beforehand.   Nothing changed in regards to Jacks choice leading up to it, other than Jill's knowledge of it.  Does Jack's still have free will in this instance?  Did Jack have free will; if Jill had no knowledge of what he would do?

This depends more on the state of the actual world rather than on your hypothetical. If Jack is determined to act a certain way, then regardless of his process of choice, he will act that certain way regardless of someone else's foreknowledge of the event. The question is whether his act being pre-determined by knowledge of what will necessarily happen is compatible with an absolute freedom to do otherwise. If we truly have free will, it's hard to see how any being could have infallible knowledge of the future. But if Jack truly has free will, supposedly he could act in a way which violates her foreknowledge. I don't see how that's possible, but people make the argument. Again though, that depends on whether Jack has free will to begin with or not.