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

[Coffee Jesus]

Secondly, since it's the thought of sin that'll convict me and not the act, we're still left with a scenario in which god could prevent evil actions but not thoughts; he knows what we think anyway, and the only result of this system would be a net reduction of needless suffering.

I thought, errantly, that MFM was posing that evil has to be possible for anything to be truly immoral. The Christian could say that immoral thoughts are immoral because they create a setting in which evil is more probable. Hence there would be no immoral thoughts unless evil was possible, or at least seemed to be possible..

[Little lunch]

I view free will as the consciousness to choose to either do something or not do it.

One can either have coffee in the morning or not have coffee in the morning. The choice to either drink coffee or not drink it is known as free will.

That is why free will is the bane of prophecy, because prophecy falsely claims to be a set event that cannot be changed. Free will indicates otherwise.

But do you really have a choice to drink that coffee? If you drink it you always were going to drink it. Up to that point, your whole life has led up to drinking that coffee. A chain reaction that none of us have any control over, that is so complex, we appear to have free will.
Thankfully so.
Just my viewpoint at the moment. :-)

I agree that free will is the bane of prophecy.
Also the direction of time. I can't see how the future can be foretold when it hasn't happened.
It seems unlikely that mass amounts of information could travel back in time and then be received by a human mind.
A god could do it of course, with magic. :-)

[fr0d0]

I have dreams of future events. Completely useless, and seemingly genuine, I kid you not.

So would that invalidate "free will"?

[Foxaèr]

But do you really have a choice to drink that coffee?

Yes. You can drink it or you can not drink it. One has to choose between one or the other, because one cannot do both.

If you drink it you always were going to drink it.

Bolded for emphasis.

The opposite can also be stated. If you don't drink it, you always were going to not drink it.. See above statement about not being able to do both drinking and not drinking; which means a choice is always involved.

[xpastor]

The Christian argument that God allows evil in order to give us free will only became prominent in fairly modern times as a supposed argument against atheistic determinism (i.e. a mechanistic universe in which all our thoughts and decisions are wholly conditioned by prior events).

However, Christianity itself has a long history of determinism. If God is omniscient and has perfect foreknowledge, then as our creator he has already foreordained every decision we make. Extreme Calvinism is the only logical form of Christianity: that from all eternity God has elected some to salvation and many to damnation, quite apart from anything they do.

As always, the bible is all over the place on the subject. There are plenty of text which strongly imply free will, e.g. God does not desire the death of a sinner, but that he should turn and live. Equally, there are texts which deny free will. The example of God "hardening the pharaoh's heart" has already been mentioned. In Romans 9 echoing a passage from Isaiah Paul compares God to a potter and humans to the vessels he shapes:

16 So then, everything depends, not on what we humans want or do, but only on God's mercy. 17 (G)For the scripture says to the king of Egypt, “I made you king in order to use you to show my power and to spread my fame over the whole world.” 18 So then, God has mercy on anyone he wishes, and he makes stubborn anyone he wishes.
19 But one of you will say to me, “If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? Who can resist God's will?” 20 (H)But who are you, my friend, to talk back to God? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it, “Why did you make me like this?” 21 (I)After all, the man who makes the pots has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two pots from the same lump of clay, one for special occasions and the other for ordinary use.
22 (J)And the same is true of what God has done. He wanted to show his anger and to make his power known. But he was very patient in enduring those who were the objects of his anger, who were doomed to destruction. 23 And he also wanted to reveal his abundant glory, which was poured out on us who are the objects of his mercy, those of us whom he has prepared to receive his glory.

This is pure Calvinist predestination. Many could not stomach the horrible doctrine (like Pelagius who argued vehemently for free will) but Augustine upheld the orthodox view.

So, to respond to the OP. Yeah, Christians are clueless on the subject of free will.

[MindForgedManacle]

Here is a simple solution: We don't have the Greek born concept of free will. The bible tells us the opposite. We either are slaves to sin, or we serve God.

Of course, Drich is too moronic to realize the concept of free will neither originated with the Greeks, nor is there only one such conception of free will. Nor does he realize the hilarious stupid theological stances such a position puts him in. But I didn't expect anything more from him, so I'm not disappointed.

[fr0d0]

Calvanists go into free agency over free will don't they? You don't have free will as determinism/ a mechanistic universe is true. You are instead a free agent to do as your will dictates. No problem at all.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Calvanists go into free agency over free will don't they? You don't have free will as determinism/ a mechanistic universe is true. You are instead a free agent to do as your will dictates. No problem at all.

Problem: you're the only Calvinist here, and no one agrees with you.

[Coffee Jesus]

Don't you guys tend to consider heaven to be an ideal world?

Clever. Except you moved the goal post without addressing your unsupported premise that a god worthy of the name could fully conceive and create the fullness of reality free from suffering. You avoid defending that premise by suggesting that heaven is equally inconceivable. Such is not the case, since heaven is a subset of the total reality and even at that may not be entirely perfect according to your impossibly high standard for what constitutes perfection.

For that matter, what is it that you expect? I suppose God could have just created a giant flawless crystal sphere and stopped at that. Or maybe He could have given us over to all be Lotus Eaters, living in pleasure and doing nothing useful or growing as people.

God made the rules. If the rule is that God cannot make a perfect heaven without making an imperfect Earth, then God made that rule.

[fr0d0]

Calvanists go into free agency over free will don't they? You don't have free will as determinism/ a mechanistic universe is true. You are instead a free agent to do as your will dictates. No problem at all.

Problem: you're the only Calvinist here, and no one agrees with you.