> just because a choice is available doesn't mean it's free will.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can you make a volitional choice (you choose the choice you make) that isn't free will? It's like you want your cake and eat it, too: I get to decide, but I didn't decide. I think you'll say it's because your choices were limited, but our choices are always limited. Ultimately, having 57 choices is qualitatively no different than having two. The only difference is that in one scenario, reality gives 57, and in the other, reality gives 2. But truth is truth, and choice is choice. I have to make a choice among the alternatives offered me by truth and reality. Regardless, the choice is still mine to make via free will.

> So if you choose to speed on the highway and get caught and subsequently punished, that wasn't a free will choice?

No because I was aware I could be punished for the action. If I could speed with no issues it would be free will.

> So when the cop stops you, you can say, "I had no free will. It wasn't my choice.

Again, just because a choice is available doesn't mean it's free will.

> THAT plays in traffic court.

Traffic court does not look at free will. They look at if you broke the set of rules that are laid out.

So if you choose to speed on the highway and get caught and subsequently punished, that wasn't a free will choice? There were only two choices: drive within the speed limit or drive exceeding it, knowing that there could be a punishment for the latter choice. So when the cop stops you, you can say, "I had no free will. It wasn't my choice. There were only two options and there was a punishment for choosing the wrong one, so I'm not to blame. I was being restricted, so there was no free will here." Yeah, see how THAT plays in traffic court.

> But what if there are only 3 flavors, and you can choose from any of the 3, is that free will?

You have all choices available to you with no restrictions on them and no punishment for choosing the wrong one. Free will.

> What if there are only 2—then is it still free will for you to pick the one you want?

If you are being restricted, not free will

> never said anything about potential outcomes.

You actually have been: "If my actions have weight that will only lead to 2 places, one good and one bad, you don’t have free will. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to do something, you don’t have free will." But we'll move on.

> if you go to the Ice cream shop and all the flavors are available, but they only let you choose from 3, it's not free will.

But what if there are only 3 flavors, and you can choose from any of the 3, is that free will? What if there are only 2—then is it still free will for you to pick the one you want?

never said anything about potential outcomes. if you go to the Ice cream shop and all the flavors are available, but they only let you choose from 3, it's not free will.

It sounds like you're saying that unless you get to choose the options AND the potential outcomes, it's not free will. So I could go into an ice cream shop where there are 20 flavors, but if they don't have the one I desire, it's not free will?

Having a choice isn't free will. Being able to make any choice you desire is.

Well, you know I disagree with you, and I've shown you theoretically, logically, and practically how it's still a choice. In a real world, your choices are always limited. The freedom to walk away is just as much of a choice as the freedom to engage one of the choices. It's all free will.

But your real issue is God and Hell, so let's focus there. You seem to think there are only two choices: Fake a belief in a god or be consigned to Hell, which in your mind is not a choice, because faking a belief isn't anything real, so you are stuck with only one fate: consigned to Hell, and therefore, no choice. But this is not accurate. There's a third choice.

You could, with an open mind, free thinking, and objective perspective consider deeply all the evidence that is posited for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. If you do that (or have already done that), then you have a legitimate choice: believe that evidence or reject that evidence, knowing that either course of action has significant consequences. And if you just are not convinced by the evidence for theism and Christianity, then that's the choice you are making. You are still using your free will to assess evidence and give weight to arguments, you are using your free will to consider alternatives and reason through them at every possible angle, and using your free will to choose A or B, knowing what the consequences of that decision will be. It's all free will.

If your choices are limited it's not free will. Free will would be the option to walk away from any of that if they wished.