By changing the subject you are conceding the point.
Agreed. I go further. Failing to successfully rebut a plausible argument is conceding its conclusion. It's the same standard used in a court of law: the last plausible, unrebutted argument prevails. Who made it? The defense? If so, one must vote not guilty if he is on a jury and acting in good faith. Was it the prosecution? Did the prosecutor present an airtight case that is plausible and could not be successfully rebutted by the defense? Then your duty is to vote guilty. That's dialectic - the method used in academia to decide matters between cooperating critical thinkers. This is the same, although some participants may not understand that when they fail to successfully rebut, that the debate is over, and their argument or claim was defeated.
I see Baha'u'llah is proved by His personal and Message
The very same evidence that allows me to reject his claims and those made about him. I see mundane words and a mundane life. I realize that it is blasphemy to you, but I know many people who can write that kind of language, and who have lived more exemplary lives than a preacher that isn't also King or Tutu possibly can - men who distinguished themselves the way distinguished humanists do. The same is true with Jesus, who is also offered as a moral standard to be aimed for. Really? Same answer.
I still get email from my former pastor from 40 years ago, a gifted and charismatic man full of joy and boundless energy. This guy certainly equals Jesus and Baha'u'llah morally:
November 10, 2022
Greetings *****,
I am traveling in Texas today, thankful for the opportunity to teach leaders. Several days ago, it struck me how suddenly the Covid 19 lockdowns came upon us, and for me how fast they lifted. The last three months have been full! New York, Maryland, West Virginia, Mexico, South Africa, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, England and Michigan. I am rejoicing, thankful to be working with our Lord, for His favor, protection and provision.
I see the word of God as timeless and has many meanings
Many meanings? That's not good, not in the context of instructions from on high. You're probably aware of what distinguishes prose from poetry. Prose informs, and should be specific, as with directions somewhere, or a PhD thesis, or a last will and testament. Poetry is art, and is deliberately nonspecific, so that the reader can project himself into its meaning. Here's a verse from Dylan's Desolation Row:
Dr. Filth, he keeps his world inside of a leather cup
But all his sexless patients, they're trying to blow it up
Now his nurse, some local loser, she's in charge of the cyanide hole
And she also keeps the cards that read, "Have Mercy on His Soul"
They all play on the penny whistles, you can hear them blow
If you lean your head out far enough from Desolation Row
What does that say? Nothing specific. It means whatever one wants it to mean. As you say, it is timeless and has many meanings. What do you see there? What's being criticized when you read it? Probably not the same as me. Is that Jeffrey and Ghislane? Trump and Melania? Johnny and Amber? Probably not, since you're not American. You're more likely to be thinking of Australians. For me, it brings to mind a specific physician I worked with.
Many meanings: good in poetry, bad in prose.
No, there is no test that can be devised that proves that we could have chosen otherwise, because we cannot go back in time and recreate the same exact set of circumstances and prove that we could have chosen otherwise under the same circumstances. However, that does not prove we had no ability to choose what we chose, so we do have a will.
Agreed, and I think I made that point - there is no test possible to distinguish between free will and the illusion of free will.
Whether we were 'free' to choose something different or not does not mean we do not have volition, which is the faculty or power of using one's will.
Yes, we have volition, but is it determined by the state of the universe at the moment the choice is revealed, or is the volitional agent unconstrained to make his choice. As I said, the hardest part of this subject for most is to see that those are very different things, both called free will.
I have a dog - a pug - who spins in counterclockwise circles and begins whimpering whenever he sees me preparing his bowl. Every time. Is that free will or only the illusion of free will? Maybe this will help: other pug owners report the same behavior in their pugs, but not their other breeds.
I say that he has no choice in the matter. He recognizes it's feeding time and a message is sent to his consciousness to spin counterclockwise, which he dutifully obeys without question or further consideration. Could he choose to not spin? It's physically possible, obviously, since other dogs don't spin, including his terrier sister. But I say that he has no choice. He has a will, but I say that it is not free to choose to not spin, or to spin in the other direction.
That's easy to see, because his repertoire of responses is limited to one. But what if he sometimes behaved differently, like you and I do when we know food is being prepared? Would that mean our wills are free? The argument is that we couldn't tell even if we had a time machine and could visit the moment and act again, although I think being able to predict somebody's choice before they act as with a PET scan would go a long way toward demonstrating that the feeling that one could have chosen otherwise might be illusion.
The most misunderstood aspect of free will among many theists is that we are completely free to choose whatever we want to choose, with no constraints on our choices.
I would agree with that, but don't think you do, which is why I think you mistyped. You probably meant atheists. And I wouldn't disagree with that either, because most atheists have trouble with this idea as well - making a distinction between the illusion of free will - having a desire and executing it without any feeling of being constrained to make that choice - and having an indeterministic will that actually could have chosen otherwise.
Free will is simply the will/ability to make choices based upon 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.
This tells me that I haven't gotten through to you yet. And that is exactly why I call this the most misunderstood aspect of this subject.
And, of course, this is the basis of the claim that the coexistence of omniscience and indeterministic free will are incompatible. As alluded, if we could predict what an individual will do in any specified situation as an omniscient god is said to be able to do, we cannot call his will free, just his ability to execute it, and maybe not even that.