The free will argument demonstrates that christians don't understand free will.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Heaven. At least, most adherents say that it's supposed to be perfect

Regardless of what most Christians believe, let’s see what the Bible says…

“I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband. I heard a loud voice out of heaven saying, "Behold, God's dwelling is with people, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away from them every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; neither will there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain*, any more. The first things have passed away." - Revelation 21:2-4

First, the Greek word translated into English as “pain” literally means “toil” and not physical discomfort. To me that means that the blessed (citizens of Heaven) will have useful things to do that they love doing. In my earlier posts I made clear that even the blessed can inadvertently cause pain, but that is mitigated by the Lord’s restorative abundance.

Or, to sum it up

• He is not able
  
• He is not willing
  

He is willing but not able. He cannot make a square circle either.

Does anyone else find it odd that Chad accused me of moving the goalposts, and yet he's the one taking the argument away from the problem of evil so he can start talking about perfect worlds?

Isn’t the problem of evil all about why the world isn’t free from pain and suffering, i.e. some kind of perfect world. Besides you brought it up by claiming that Heaven somehow violated freewill.

I'm not discussing a perfect world, just the fact that god could easily make marked improvements to the one that we currently live in, and that the christian standard response to this, that it would violate free will, is nonsensical…I don't think a perfect world, for every person, at all times, is possible without violating free will because some people are psychopaths who would find the suffering of others to be a part of their perfect world. But one who had the powers of a god could make a markedly better world without violating free will, certainly.

That’s just your opinion and an unsupported one at that. How can you say that this isn’t already the best of all possible worlds and that the improvements you think are possible are not precluded by other considerations? One such consideration that I raised, and which you have not addressed, is whether true love is possible without the freedom to choose who you love and how much you love them.

…there's a difference between "suffering" and "human produced suffering," the latter of which being what the problem of evil seeks to address, and the free will argument seeks to excuse.

The problem of evil has always included natural evils, but if you wish to discuss only moral evils that’s fine. It’s your thread.

In the weakest sense, free will is taken to mean that you can act as you decide without external influence. Thus a compatablist can say that you have free will in the sense that you are the author of your choices and with the understanding that your internal natural has already been fixed by and previous physical processes. A hard determinist makes a less generous claim but has basically the same result. Both assume physical monism.

Most Christians do not assume physical monism and usually, like me, advocate some type of dualism. We put the physical world, including our physical bodies, in the category of external influences. Those who follow only the impulses of the natural body are considered “slaves to sin”, because they allow an sensual influences to override their consciences. To be totally free of external influences, choices must occur outside of, yet still influence, the stream of efficient causes-and-effects. As such most modern Christians (other than those vile Presbyterians ) have a tacitly existentialist view about human nature. You do not have a fixed nature that leads to specific choices; but rather, the choices you make define your nature.

This idea is further developed in Process theology. To choose is a creative act. At any moment, even under the most restrictive circumstances, people still have unlimited choice. For example, someone alone in a desert can walk in any direction, sit in a variety of postures, sing any song, pray, pluck his eyebrows, draw in the sand, pick a scab, compose a poem…etc. The list is endless. The power to create choices is not an ability given to people; but rather, the space God makes for humanity’s creative participation through His own self-limiting, or kenosis. Thus God can continue to create good exclusively even if humans pervert their own creative capacity.