It addresses the question of having evidence that "fits the picture" for free will existing because no one can read the future.
Which is what we were talking about for that evidence.
I've requoted the paragraph that drew my initial comment.
I think the way Cat Sci is explaining free will (the present is a fundamental reality of how time works, and therefore no one... not even a God... can "see the future" without removing free will). Is the most likely candidate of how things actually work.
There is no evidence whatsoever that whatever we experience in terms of free will exists despite God's existence, because of God's existence, or because of God's non existence. All we have is an impression of free will and a dearth of evidence about the later.
I can only conclude that you mean evidence in a very loose sense. Namely that you know of facts that do not contradict your belief and that you are not aware of any that contradict it. The problem is that, the evidence is not contrary to the opposite conclusion either and thus it is not truly evidence in any strong sense.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams