First, assuming that God is the creator, then God created the free will of humans. He defined how free will reacts to the environment, he set in motion every influencing factor in the universe. He creates every reward, every temptation, every pain and pleasure. He knows in advance how humans will react to external factors, regardless of their free will: to deny this is to deny God's omniscience. He specified every parameter of existence. Therefore, when God created free will, he knew in advance what the results would be (i.e., immorality, suffering), and then went ahead and handed out free will anyway. To bring the computers back briefly, if a mad scientist created a bunch of robots with AI, knew that some of those AIs would go on a mad rampage of fleshling destruction, and then made them anyway, it's still his responsibility when the mob comes with the torches: he knew the results his actions would have, and he did those actions anyway. It's even more ridiculous to say that the robots are going against the mad scientist's wishes: unless the mad scientist wanted the robots to kill humans, there is no reason to create or release robots with the sort of AI that leads to homicide. Likewise, God must have been perfectly happy with the version of free will he came up with, with all its sins and flaws, or else he would have used his omnipotence and made it without those flaws. Sticking free will into the picture only creates an additional link in the chain going back to the all-powerful, all-knowing creator, but in the end the responsibility falls once more on him.
But what if the flaws are a logical consequence of free will?
I can imagine a universe with different laws of physics, but I don't think a universe with different laws of mathematics is possible even in theory - it simply doesn't make sense. Regardless of how the universe came to be, it seems to me that logic works in the same ways. If the ability for evil was an inherent part of free will, a logical result, then no amount of power, even infinite, could remedy to it - except by making no free will.
Second, it presumes that free agents are capable of going against the will of God. In other words, it presumes that an omnipotent, omniscient creator god is incapable of getting what he wants. Absolutely ridiculous. If God wants humans to be moral, and yet also have free will, why aren't all humans totally moral free agents? There is no inherent logical contradiction between morality and free will. Saying that God is incapable of creating a moral free agent, or that free agents are somehow out of his control, is a denial of his omnipotence. Saying that God wants to value free will above all else, and yet without making sure that unpleasant results don't happen, necessarily means that God must want the unpleasant results alongside free will: if he didn't want immorality, then he shouldn't have created a free will capable of it.
I dunno...Maybe it's possible to create perfect minds, with no evil tendencies; maybe it isn't. I don't understand good and evil well enough to decide. But if it's contradictory, then a creator might consider that having agents in the system with free will is important enough as to outweigh the damage caused...
Third, the argument assumes that God is forbidden somehow from restricting free will, or denying it totally. This claim is mindless, because free will is already restricted by the laws of physics or innate behavioral instincts. You can't will yourself to fly without mechanical aid. You can't will your limbs to grow back. You can't stop yourself from feeling pain and hunger, at least not without drugs. There are some acts which would be immoral if they weren't impossible: stealing others' thoughts, for instance. Absolute free will would, in fact, be a disaster, because no punishment could have an effect on influencing an absolute free agent's behavior: they simply would not care what happens to them. The theist is left to argue why, if God values free will too much to prevent immoral acts, why certain acts are already prevented by the universe he created.
Free will is the ability to think
in certain ways, not to act
in certain ways. My human frailities don't restrain my free will (though one might make a case that my hormones do).
Fourth, the theist is also left to explain why free will is a virtue for God in the first place. We value free will because we have it, but in a universe where nothing had free will, there would be no such values. In the novel by Voltaire, Candide, there is a character, Dr. Pangloss, who believes that we live in the best of all possible worlds, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, and that the universe could have been created in no other way. Saying that God had to create free will is a panglossian error; assuming that the characteristics, values, and morals of the universe we live in are somehow the best of all possible worlds. What objective reason is there for God to create free will, particularly if it's going to be a thorn in his side? We assume God must appreciate free will because we do, but what a priori argument could one make to argue in favor of free will? In a universe with no free will, there is no inequality or oppression because no one has it. It would be like saying rocks are oppressed, or that denying free will to computers is somehow morally wrong. There are some who would argue that our love of God must come from free will to be meaningful, but this is silly. God knew in advance how the universe would interact with people and how people would interact with people to influence their behavior and traits. He set up every parameter of existence in accordance with his wishes, and in doing so he knew that his actions would necessarily lead to people loving him. He knows who will love him and why, and he ordained these things at the moment of creation. To God, our free will would have to be an illusion, a relic of the fact that we can't percieve everything, and therefore our love would be no more an expression of free will than that of a puppet.
Loved "Candide" (which I have at times described as the Dilbert of the 18th century), but...I can imagine a few reasons free will would be valuable. Without sentient beings to appreciate the universe, what point does it have? And a hypothetic creator might have wanted company...
Fifth, the doctrine of Heaven, where all who dwell within lead happy and all-moral lives, refutes the argument. If there is free will in Heaven, then it is possible for free will to co-exist with morality according to God's will, and the theist is left to argue why God made the living world any different. If there is no free will in Heaven, then God does not value free will as much as the theists claim he does, and the theist must then argue why the living world has free will while the perfect world of Heaven does not. The only response is to admit that Heaven is imperfect -- that there is unhappiness, immorality, and violation of God's will going on. But I doubt you'll hear that. A similar argument to the previous is whether God has free will or not. If it is assumed that God is all-moral, then the existence of a God with free will denies the notion that a free agent cannot be all-moral in accordance with God's wishes.
Ah, there it is. This is actually a very good argument, IMO, against the Christian cosmogony. If free will automatically means imperfection, and thus evil, then either Heaven has evil in it, or no free will.
I see no flaw in this argument. Which doesn't really bother me, considering I don't believe in Heaven anyway (or God, for that matter).