asaris

First, the fact that the knowledge of the events is merely the result of being a passive observer is sufficent to rule out simple omniscience conflicting with free will. If God merely knows everything that happens/will happen/has happened, but doesn't have any control over it, he doesn't interfere with free will.

Second, 'fault' is a bad word to use here, since it implies moral blame. It's unclear that merely by setting those drivers on that road, you should be blamed for the accident. Perhaps only by what you call 'causing the accident' could a much greater evil been averted. But more importantly, I don't see why we should think I caused the accident at all, or, if it all, then in a very minimal sense. Most proximally, the intersection of the two cars caused the accident; somewhat less proximally, the free choices of the drivers caused the accident. My actions, whatever they might have been, to put those drivers en route to the accident, are very far removed down the chain of causality. In fact, if we're keeping to a libertarian definition of free will, they're not really part of the chain of causality at all.

As far as other threads go, see if you can find my thread on Molinism (I think 'Molinism' as a search term should do it). That's very relevant to your problem, since Molinism is an attempt to reconcile a strong view of providence (God ordains all things) with a strong view of freedom.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche