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

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think this goes back to Esquilax's opening post. Free will doesn't mean your choices are unconditional. In Esquilax's opening example, the choice to swim is conditioned upon whether water is present.

No one is arguing otherwise. The point is that despite restricting circumstances the number to potential choices is unlimited. You cannot calculate the odds of someone doing something if they could do anything within their power to do.

…somebody who is trapped in poverty is more likely to seek wealth through illegitimate means, such as stealing. This doesn't mean they couldn't choose not to steal; it just means the probability of them choosing to steal was conditioned upon their circumstances.

I think there is a difference between potential and probability. Saying that someone is conditioned to behave in a certain way just because they have the ability and opportunity to do so…that’s a big leap. Again, humans do not just conform to their circumstances. Humans change things to create opportunities that never before existed. For example, there is a scene in Ender’s Game in which Ender plays a video game. In the game, a giant presents Ender’s mouse character with a choice between two goblets, one leads to fairyland while the other is poison. In a display of genius, Ender chooses neither. His mouse character leaps into the giant’s eye socket and kills him. We create choices every bit as much as we make them.

…Whether evil exists or not, God gave us the freedom to make our own decisions. We can make whatever choices we please. What's so hard to understand about that?

You're stripping out all the bad parts of the issue so that only the good remain and then acting confused at why people have a problem with it.

And you are ignoring your faulty premise. You merely assert that God could have made the world better than it already is while still providing space for humans to exercise their own volition. That need not be that case and if not your whole argument falls apart.

Yes he does

No he doesn't.

Yes he does. *sticks out tongue* “So I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten,…” - Joel 2:25. On earth we suffer, but an Heaven our wounds are healed and our hurt soothed.

Your nature does not determine your choices; but rather, your choices define your nature.

Anecdotally, I can tell you you're wrong. Any time I see money sitting out in the open with no one watching it, I don't steal it. Now yes, the fact that I didn't steal it means I'm not a thief…It's literally against my nature to steal that money, so I don't steal it.

From an existentialist point of view, the choice to steal makes you a thief. The choice not to steal makes you honest. You have no essential nature until after the choice has been made. The counterpoint made by anglo-american analytic philosophy assumes physical monism, which I find problematic, but still open question.

…studies in neuroscience show that we make decisions before we're consciously aware of them. Whether this is our nature determining our choices or us simply making them faster than we realize, there's something happening there beyond conscious, cognitive decision-making.

That particular study is very controversial and there is much debate about whether the interpretation matches the data. If, for the sake of argument, I accept the study’s interpretation, the question gets shifted as to whether the logical left-brain voice in your head is the fullness of your personal identity. Most experienced meditators, like myself, will tell you it is not. You can strip away many fluid parts of self that unceasingly change, but there is always a small fundamental piece that remains; your own internal unmoved mover. I doubt anyone has yet found the neural correlates for that, if it is even possible to do so.