How do non-Open-Theists reason a basis for "Free will"?

The underlying issue/debate that I am having is the reconciliation of God's omniscience (the foreknowledge part in particular) with free will (or lack of it, resulting in Fatalism). In short: If God knows **everything**, including every future action I take before I was even born, how can I take responsibility for sin if I can't prove God wrong? For example: @telion's unborn daughter will lie on 12.12.2050 (I ask this on 02.06.2024 without even having a girlfriend). => If that future sin is known then it follows (at least for me) that this sin is predetermined. => This contradicts the idea of human responsibility for their sins and the free will God provides. It also means that God is responsible for all human sin, which is probably the wrong conclusion. One way to resolve this is to "redefine" the definition of God's omniscience or free will. This is why this question is a follow-up of this one: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101929/what-is-the-biblical-concept-idea-meaning-of-gods-omniscience My personal solution would be to say that God has knowledge of the future but this knowledge is limited in such a way, that human free will is possible. I recently came to know that this position actually has a name which is Open Theism . In the question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83747/which-verses-in-the-bible-say-that-god-is-omniscient the [accepted answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83748/10672) features a defense against Open Theism that includes a lot of scripture, which comes to the conclusion that God has "exhaustive knowledge of the future". However, I either don't understand the actual solution that is provided to the problem of predetermination provided by this defense, or I am simply unconvinced. I think the reason for that is the definition of "free will" or as John Frame puts it: "uncaused actions". I don't think actions are uncaused but there is still a freedom of decision. Meaning if I have 2 options to choose from, then the "probability" of which one I will pick doesn't have to be 50/50. Let's say I have to decide which subject I should get a college degree in: Based on my interests, upbringing, and life goals, specific options are more likely than others so regardless of what I choose, the decision is not free of influence. Influence is not the same thing as predetermination, as I can choose to disregard a specific influence. **So how do I imagine the perspective of God on the future and free will?** I think it is similar to the perspective of the developer of the Game Detroit: Become Human . (To get a better feel for the concept behind the game, see [this video]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cLDDwLeJA); at 16.48 the player has to decide between lying or telling the truth.) In this game, the player plays through a story and is provided with various decisions that can greatly impact the overall storyline of the game. In this case, the developer knows and provides all possible options. So he is not particularly surprised by a specific event. The player in this case has limited free will, meaning he cannot decide to simply become a shopkeeper e.g., as that is not an option in the game. But the decisions provided to the player are free. I also think that based on God's almightiness, "forgetting" or "choosing to not know" which options people finally decide, should be in the realm of possibility. The competing view/analogy is that of a movie, where the viewer is "beyond time" from the perspectives of the characters in the movie (as I can fast forward, go back, or replay the movie). In this case, though, I argue that the characters in the movie, don't have actual free will, or at least the "free will" in that case is illusionary. So if I as a movie creator make a story where a person commits a sin, then I can hardly blame the character for it. So to summarize the question(s): - How do non-Open Theists argue for human free will? - How do non-Open Theists argue against predeterminism? - How do non-Open Theists finally conclude that humans are responsible for their sins?