People try to derive one from the other far too much. I don't believe it's logical to come up with "you don't have free will" through this thought process quoted.

Consider this example: I am god. I know that in Jimmy's next day alive, he will wear the pink sweater, not the blue one. While it is true, no matter what, Jimmy WILL wear the pink sweater, where the deriving falls off course with reality and logic and into the hands of presumptuous people is this: Just because it was going to happen, doesn't mean their wasn't a choice made by Jimmy. God isn't in Jimmy's mind, Jimmy decided to wear the pink sweater over the blue sweater because he thought his girlfriend Sarah would like it. That was Jimmy's though process and decision which made the occasion happen, not god's force.

This is where many people differ on each side. The true argument is: Just because it can be predicted, does it make it a choice? Your argument is (correct me if I am wrong): God knows Jimmy will wear the pink sweater. Now Jimmy no longer has the ability to wear the blue sweater, and has no choice in the matter, because he can't prove god wrong. Else god isn't omniscient. However, the counter argument to that is this: Because Jimmy has 0 knowledge of god's predicted fate for Jimmy, his actions are triggered through the divine mandate of god's omnipotence and omniscient. It's triggered through Jimmy's logic and reasoning, which made him make the choice.

Does Free Will + god being all knowing = pre-determinism. I think so. But can pre-determine the outcome of a choice made in the future by Jimmy and still have Jimmy be the triggering unit which makes the decision, I would say so.