Is there free will in heaven?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think in a conversation between an atheist such as myself, and a christian such as yourself, the only person referring to a fixed or set nature would be the christian. Isn't that an integral part of the mythos about our relationship with god and how we were created, what we were created to do/be etc? I don't have a list of commandments, or cosmic moral codes, nor do I buy into the notion that we were created for any purpose, or created with any set attributes, like "his likeness", or really anything that the myth implies. To me, our nature is what we can observe ourselves andf others doing. Why should it be something else, on what basis can we make claims about that "something else"? If you asked me "what is human nature?" I'd say, "hey, lets go take a look."
(Why would we all have " a set nature that is all inclusive and identical", what part of anything I've said would imply that I believe this to be the case? Could we, under the christian viewpoint, all have unique "natures" completely unrelated to each other?)

You could probably make a list of "unnatural things" that people do, but that would require that you differentiate and set metrics based on what exactly? Averages in the population (or do you have some other metric, and is it falsifiable)? What distinction is there between what we can do and what is in our nature to do? Can we do something "unnaturally", what would that even mean? Could it be that some things are "instinctual" or "natural" and others are taught (self sacrifice being one example maybe?). Well, isn't it our nature to pass information along through means other than genetic code? Up to and including complicated social structures and morality? Is it really against our nature to sacrifice ourselves for others? Is free will being used here as a positive descriptor? the act of doing something good against our "nature". You start this whole thing by talking about our "nature", but how does one get from our "nature" to all of this? How does any of this support the claim that there are souls, with free wills, that reside in heaven? Now, why, supposing that there were free will, would it need to be something beyond the ability of our own brains? One mechanism for every other type of thought, and another for "free will"? What is there for me to avoid here? I'm not seeing it.

I don't know if this is beyond the op's intent. The question is free will, you're giving an argument to support that such a thing (and I suspect such a thing as described by a complicated set of assumptions) exists in the first place. Which would be nice to establish, since we're otherwise talking about an unsubstantiated something residing in yet another unsubstantiated something, which is residing in yet another unsubstantiated something. Bit of a russian doll scenario, freewill ->souls ->heaven.

Now, a question I have to ask here, I understand that you feel that logic supports your conclusions about heaven, free will, the entire bit. Would you be comfortable with the claim that internally consistent fiction (or really any notion that could be made "logically consistent with itself") represents a credible claim to truth? Dracula, Star Wars fan fiction? You seem to want to imply that science is insufficient for this inquiry and logic does a better job, but why? It would seem that in this example particularly the kinds of problems one runs into with logic become even more pronounced. Is everything that appears to be logical, internally consistent, or supported by whatever axioms a person begins with equally truthful? So, it says in the narrative that there was a rebellion in heaven. Clearly an indicator of free will(as you define it). But was there a rebellion in heaven? Does heaven exist? Is free will required for rebellion? Does free will exist? Obviously the text would seem to imply free will to you, but Salty here has informed us that there is a sort of mental barrier involved (except that it wouldn't really be a mental barrier, would it, separated from our physical brains. It's a magic barrier in a magic place set by a magical being to control lesser magical beings). She can probably make this claim logically consistent with her overall god narrative. Why would her claim be less truthful than your own? I'm assuming "logically consistent" wouldn't cut it for you. You'd want textual evidence right? Well I want evidence too, and unfortunately the text is under considerable amounts of very strong scrutiny from every angle. To be clear, I don't think that there is a heaven to have free will in. Nor do I think the thing being described as free will, or our "nature" or our "moralilty" exists as described by those who wish to attach a god to the claim. I'm also completely certain that the god being invoked does not exist as described. Exactly what part of this narrative is supposed to be convincing and well supported by evidence? How can we throw away global floods and keep lengthy and detailed descriptions of gods wants or desires, or our own internal "spiritual composition"?. The point I'm trying to make here, is that there is more than likely an immense set of assumptions that led you to the conclusion that such things existed, and those assumptions aren't something we're likely to see eye to eye on.

I also take issue with your suggestions for questions we "should be asking". The last two questions are being asked, and quantified. Adding the first to that list appears to me to be an attempt to gain some credibility or respect by association with the other two which I feel is unwarranted. The first question and the other two aren't even in the same ballpark. Why ask such a question (that has been asked countless times and tested countless times) when that particular area of research has been consistently unfruitful and stands in direct opposition to what empirical observations we have made regarding the subject? Why not go all the way down the rabbit hole with a "turtles" explanation, each mind having a mind behind it, natural>supernatural>hypernatural..... ad infinitum? Why have you stopped just one layer in at exactly the point that would appear to agree with the "scriptural position"? Once you've opened those floodgates can't I just continue to assert that there are more and more layers until you're tired of talking to me? Where does our spirit consciousness arise from, and the consciousness of that? And if we invoke a creator, where does his consciousness arise from, and then where does that "hyper-cosmic" consciousness come from?

(I used to have a lot of free time on my hands to sit around lazily thinking up questions like these uninterrupted)