Is there free will in heaven?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Rhythm
I appreciate the time you've dedicated to the conversation. I'm not aware of salty's claims, nor do I have the time to review what she has claimed and give my interpretation of it. I also have to say that I have real questions about the intent of any substance monist, especially one that doesn’t believe in free will, would have any comment in this thread at all. Firstly I’ll address assumptions, then the other points:
1) The assumptions here are not complex. The topic is “Is there free will in Heaven?” That assumes, for this discussion , that there is a Heaven, there is free will and by default I assume the Christian flavor. That further assumes that the Christian concept of a soul would exist in Heaven. I stopped there because those are the parameters of this discussion. If you can’t accept the parameters of the question as a possibility, then I don’t know why you’re even discussing it.
2) Fixed nature- I am a substance dualist. I believe we are more than the sum of our biological processes. I also happen to have a Religious belief that defines what that extra is. These aren’t the topics of this conversation, but I’m happy to discuss them with you elsewhere.
3) I’m agnostic on most topics, so I don’t believe in truth as a realistic or achievable goal, especially in the realm of the immaterial. In that realm logically consistent and indicative, even if just subjectively, would be sufficient for possible or personal truth.
4) You asked for a study that showed free will. I listed the first one I had reviewed. It shows free will is logically possible and indicative. I did that because you had a problem with free will, despite me asking you to define it (I’m fairly certain I did ask, or at least intended to). It’s a moot point because free will is covered by the assumptions of the discussion.
5) If you would like me to or would like to we can continue the discussion, but I feel this is a good place to set some definitions. Define a soul, define Heaven, define free will, and define a soul. That seems like a good place to get a more structured conversation going, if you’re interested still.

1- I can accept the parameters as a possibility but before we wax on too deeply about any of it it would be nice to establish that these things actually exist outside of this discussion as well.

2-So what would be the situation between us then? Is it you or I that argues for a fixed nature? On what basis do you make your claims, as I've explained the source for my own (observation of human beings and their behavior, without invoking the supernatural or arbitrary definitions of "our nature") If we have a fixed nature of any sort that would be verifiable wouldn't it? That's a claim that can be falsified, which I like. (if you feel that this topic deserves it's own thread by all means do so, it would be a welcome relief from the carefully crafted nonsense we usually get)

3-"Personal truth" sounds entirely too permissive to have the word "truth" attached to it. Anything at all can be a personal truth. The guy who wears tinfoil hats and built himself an alien survival bunker is working on a "personal truth". It's unsatisfying to me, but to each his own. What immaterial realm are you even referring to here? How can one be agnostic and then give us a rundown of an "immaterial realm"? The amount of knowledge you would have to possess to have a meaningful conversation about this would be staggering. You're proposing a shadow world, that somehow mimics our own and is overlaying or underlaying to our own, that interacts somehow with our own. If souls can see, why do we need eyes? If souls can hear or sing praise, why do we need a mouth or ears? If souls are the seat of consciousness then why do we need our brains, or any of our biological machinery? I think these concepts are much more elaborate than you've presented them as. Those are the staggering amounts of assumptions I'm talking about.

4-Right, but those aren't my assumptions. You know the old saying about assumptions. I'd like to see things demonstrated before I give any weight to a claim (or at least be assured that they could be demonstrated were I so inclined). Again, free will may be logically possible if the variables in the argument are correct, the premise and assumptions. But are they?

5-This is the core of my objection. I could define "snartleblartfest" but that doesn't make it any more real or plausible as an actual thing. Not everything that we've dreamt up exists in reality. A question was asked as to whether or not there is free will in heaven(I understand the op was willing to go down the rabbit hole by those assumptions). However, after so many answers from deists, theists, atheists etc I want to see the meat in this sandwich. Is there any? In any case, my definitions for these things should be apparent. Nonexistent relics of human superstition born out of ignorance and commendable amounts of imagination. Is this definition suitable to you? Because that's what these things appear to be from every observation we've been able to make on the subject. If it isn't suitable, why not?

(edited to for niceness)