No. Computers make choices.
No. People make choices.
I am using deterministic in the mathematical sense, which is why I keep linking to:
deterministic system.
A deterministic
model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state.
So what? That does not mean choice are not made using free will.
And that process either involves randomness or is deterministic (see definition from link above).
Choices are not random. Choices are determined by our desires and preferences, which come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these are the reasons why we choose one thing or another.
It doesn't. The same process happens it's just it makes a sort of sense to say we have "free will" from our POV (
compatibilism) but a god could see how it all works.
This world is like a giant chessboard that God created and people are like the pieces moving around and making the plays on the chessboard.
God is all-knowing so God has foreknowledge of the past, present, and future. As such, God knows everything that has ever happened in the past, everything that is happening now, and everything that will ever happen in the future - to every person on earth.
However, there is no logical connection between what God can see and what humans are doing. God is transcendent, independent of all His creatures, so what God knows does not affect our actions in any way. God is not moving anyone around on the chessboard.
How do you know? It appears that certain events in quantum theory do not actually have specific causes. There is literally no cause for a particular radioactive atom decays at a particular time. There is just a probability that it might.
Every phenomenon has a cause, which it invariably follows; and from this are derived other invariable sequences among the successive stages of the same effect, as well as between the effects resulting from causes which invariably succeed one another.
You started by saying that you'd accept the definition, then contradicted yourself and went back to your preferred definition.
fact
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation
; Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. Often facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence:
Compare question of fact, question of law.
Definition of fact | Dictionary.com
I said: I'll buy that, but that does not mean that everything that exists in reality can be considered a fact. Something can be a reality and truth without being able to be proven as a fact. In other words, everything that is true cannot be considered factual. It is only factual if it can be proven as a fact.
Please note that (#1) says: something that actually exists; reality; truth.
Something can be a reality and truth without being able to be proven as a fact (#3).
That was the point I was making in my response to your definition.
And, for what seems like about the 100,000th time, evidence of the so called 'messengers' is not evidence of god.
I'd be careful what you say. If you are claiming that messengers are
not evidence of God because that has never been proven to be the case, that is an argument from ignorance.
Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of
false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.
You do not
know that messengers of God are evidence of God or not, and neither do I, which is why I am not making a claim. I am only stating my belief. So you can say that you
believe that messengers are not evidence of God, but you cannot say you
know, because it is unknowable.
It is utterly worthless. I'm not interested. I'm not going to make the blind faith leap from them to a god. Please understand this.
Of course I understand. I know it is utterly worthless for you, and I am not expecting you to believe what I believe.
No, it is not your problem unless you want to know if a man was actually a Messenger from God.
But if there is a way we can determine if they are Messengers of God then there is a point of God sending them.
Not at all. Just another reason to conclude no such god exists.
It is not a reason to conclude that no God exists, since most people can and have recognized Messengers as having been sent by God.
(P.S. I am not saying that God exists because many or most people believe that God exists, so this is not the fallacy of ad populum.)
I never once said that evidence is the same as proof. It's you who seem all confused about "validated evidence", objective evidence, and proof. I've pointed out multiple times what I mean by evidence and proof.
And I have pointed out multiple times what I mean by evidence and proof.
Is not really evidence. I disagree with your link. The fact that somebody says something is evidence (witness statements, for example) but it's a very weak form of evidence and is notoriously unreliable.
I did not say that subjective evidence is evidence we should be looking at. I said it is evidence we cannot evaluate. We cannot evaluate the claims of Baha'u'llah to be a messenger of God so we should never accept such a claim without looking at the objective evidence that supports the claim. That was my point.
Subjective evidence is evidence that we cannot evaluate. In fact, we have two choices; to accept what somebody says or reject it. ... Objective evidence is evidence that we can examine and evaluate for ourselves.
We can examine and evaluate the evidence for Baha'u'llah for ourselves because there are facts surrounding the person, life, and mission of Baha'u'llah, so in that sense we have objective evidence.
www.history.com
www.bakersfield.com
www.nbcnews.com
